Back to the articles list | Back to browse issues page

Ethics code: IR.USWR.REC.1403.193

XML Print

Strategies, practices, and challenges in enhancing quality assurance in qualitative biomedical research: A multi-method study protocol
Hamidreza Khankeh1 , Mohammad Saatchi2 , Mahdieh Motie3 , Shima Shirozhan4 , Ulrich Dirnagl5
1- QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité, Berlin, Germany ; Health in Emergency and Disaster Research Center, Social Health Research Institute, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Social Health Research Institute, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Emergency and Disaster Research Center, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Student Research Committee, Faculty of Nursing, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Emergency and Disaster Research Center, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5- QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité, Berlin, Germany
Abstract:   (116 Views)

Background: The qualitative research paradigm is crucial for understanding complex human phenomena, making credibility essential for its findings. Challenges in applying quality assessment criteria and promoting responsible practices in biomedical research underscore the need to review strategies, practices, and challenges in evaluating the quality of qualitative research. This protocol aims to support a multi-method study that develops evidence-informed, comprehensive, and practical recommendations to enhance quality assurance in qualitative research within the biomedical field.
Methods: This multi-method study protocol consists of three phases: a systematic scoping review, qualitative content analysis, and a Delphi survey. The scoping review will follow Arksey and O’Malley’s five-step approach, using relevant keywords to guide a systematic search across databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase, with no time restrictions. Qualitative content analysis will follow Graneheim and Lundman’s (2004) method. Purposeful sampling will be used to select experts in qualitative research. Semi-structured interviews will collect their experiences in evaluating qualitative research quality. Based on the review and interview findings, comprehensive, evidence-informed, and practical recommendations within the biomedical field will be developed and further refined using the Delphi method.
Conclusion: This study aims to critically examine quality achievement and evaluation in the qualitative paradigm and identify challenges, practices, and strategies through a review of existing evidence, focusing on related experiences and perceptions. The study also seeks to address gaps and controversies in the literature using qualitative content analysis. Ultimately, the goal is to develop comprehensive, evidence-informed, and practical recommendations to enhance quality assurance in qualitative research.
 

Keywords: Qualitative Research, Responsible Research, Research Integrity, Validity, Credibility, Trust, Rigor (Rigor Mortis)
     
Type of study: Original Article | Subject: Nursing
References
1. Khankeh H, Shirozhan S, Hoseini Z, Negarandeh R. Applied qualitative research in health science. Jame-e-Negar Publishing House;2024. [View at Publisher]
2. Holloway I, Galvin K. Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. John Wiley & Sons;2023. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
3. Speziale HS, Streubert HJ, Carpenter DR. Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2011. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
4. Hamedanchi A, Zanjari N, Khankeh HR, Abolfathi Momtaz Y. Hermeneutic Studies: Challenges And Strategies In Trustworthiness. Nursing And Midwifery Journal. 2021;19(2):119-27. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
5. Kornbluh M. Combatting challenges to establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research. Qual Res Psychol. 2015;12(4):397-414. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
6. Assarroudi A, Heshmati Nabavi F, Armat MR, Ebadi A, Vaismoradi M. Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. J Res Nurs. 2018;23(1):42-55. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
7. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications;2008. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8. Guba EG. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ERIC/ECTJ. 1981;29(2):75-91. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. Jossey-Bass;1981. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
10. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105-12. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
11. Leeflang MM. Responsible research: using the right methodology. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023;29(4):422-3. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
12. Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Emerging Technologies:Routledge;2020. p.117-26. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
13. Tijdink JK, Horbach SP, Nuijten MB, O'Neill G. Towards a research agenda for promoting responsible research practices. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021;16(4):450-60. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
14. Von Schomberg R. A vision of responsible research and innovation. Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. 2013. P.51-74. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
17. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-73. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2025 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research Development in Nursing and Midwifery

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb