Qualitative Study Report Template (SRQR, COREQ)

Qualitative research report: approach and paradigm, reflexivity, sampling, ethics, data collection, analysis phases, trustworthiness, themes with extracts, SRQR and COREQ maps

Ciencia e investigaciónCompletaSRQR (2014, 21 items); COREQ (2007, 32 items)qualitative study reportActualizada 29 oct 2026

Abrir en el editorDescargar .md

Cómo usar: Use it when you report an interview, focus group, observation or document study. Fill the approach and paradigm and the reflexivity section first, then sampling and analysis. The main pitfall is listing topics instead of interpreted themes supported by extracts.

Vista previa

Qualitative Study Report: [Short title of the study]

Report template for qualitative studies (interviews, focus groups, observation, document analysis) in health, education and social research. The sections follow the 21 items of the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR, Academic Medicine 2014), and an appendix maps the 32 items of the COREQ checklist for interviews and focus groups (International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007). All wording here is original; both guidelines are cited, not copied. This is a reporting format, not research-ethics or legal advice. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

Field	Value
Document ID	[QSR-001]
Qualitative approach	[e.g. Reflexive thematic analysis (Example)]
Data collection methods	[Semi-structured interviews / Focus groups / Observation / Documents]
Ethics reference	[REC / IRB number or exemption]
Protocol or registration	[OSF link, protocol paper or "not registered"]
Version	[0.1]
Status	[Draft / In review / Approved]
Owner	[@principal-investigator]
Approvers / reviewers	[@co-investigator], [@methods-lead]
Last updated	YYYY-MM-DD
Classification	[Confidential: contains pseudonymised excerpts]

Approvals

Role	Name	Decision	Date
Principal investigator	[@name]	[Approved]	YYYY-MM-DD
Methods lead	[@name]	[Approved]	YYYY-MM-DD
Patient and public partner	[@name]	[Reviewed]	YYYY-MM-DD

Revision history

Version	Date	Author	Change summary
0.1	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	First draft of findings
0.2	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	Example: Merged two candidate themes after team analysis meeting 4
1.0	YYYY-MM-DD	[@name]	Approved for submission

Title and abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results and findings
Discussion
Other information
SRQR item map
COREQ map for interviews and focus groups
Glossary and references
Standard and licence note

1. Title and abstract

The title tells readers what was studied, with whom and by which qualitative approach.

Title: [Phenomenon] among [participants] in [setting]: a qualitative [interview / focus group / ethnographic] study

Example: Living with a machine at home: a qualitative interview study of family carers of people on home haemodialysis.

Abstract heading	Content
Background	[Problem and gap]
Purpose	[Research question]
Method	[Approach, sampling, data collection, analysis]
Results	Example: 18 carers took part (14 individual interviews, one focus group with 4 carers). Four themes were developed.
Conclusions	[Main interpretation and implications]

2. Introduction

The introduction frames the problem and explains why a qualitative design answers the question better than a measurement study would.

2.1 Problem formulation (S3)

[Describe the phenomenon, its significance, relevant theory and prior research, and the gap the study addresses.]

2.2 Purpose and research questions (S4)

ID	Research question
RQ-01	Example: How do family carers experience the daily work of home haemodialysis?
RQ-02	Example: What support do carers describe as missing, and when?

3. Methods

This section explains the approach, the researchers, the context, how participants were chosen and how data were collected and analysed.

3.1 Qualitative approach and paradigm (S5)

[Name the approach and the research paradigm (for example constructivist or critical realist) and justify the fit with the question.] Example: reflexive thematic analysis within a critical realist paradigm, because the aim was to interpret shared patterns of meaning while acknowledging the material demands of treatment.

3.2 Researcher characteristics and reflexivity (S6)

Researcher	Role in study	Background and training	Relationship with participants
R1 (Example)	Interviewer, coder	Nurse researcher, PhD, 6 years qualitative experience	No prior relationship; introduced as a researcher, not a clinician
R2 (Example)	Second coder	Sociologist	None
R3 (Example)	Patient and public partner	Former carer	Reviewed interview guide and themes

Keep a reflexive journal and say how you used it. Example: R1 recorded reactions after each interview; entries prompted a revised question on financial strain after interview 5.

3.3 Context (S7)

[Setting, site and salient contextual factors.] Example: the home dialysis service of a fictional regional health district serving urban and rural areas; interviews took place in participants' homes or by video call.

3.4 Sampling strategy (S8)

Explain how and why participants were selected, how many took part, and how you decided to stop. Use a concept that fits the approach: data saturation suits some approaches, information power or theoretical sufficiency suit others.

Field	Content
Sampling	Example: Purposive, with variation in relationship to patient, rurality and time on home dialysis
Approach to participants	Example: Letter from the dialysis unit, then a phone call from R1
Invited / took part / declined	Example: 26 / 18 / 8 (reasons: time 5, illness of patient 2, no reason 1)
Stopping rationale	Example: Information power judged sufficient after analysis of interview 14 and the focus group

3.5 Ethical issues (S9)

Give the approval reference, the consent process, how confidentiality was protected, and how distress was handled. Example: written consent; interview stopped if a carer became distressed, with a referral route to the unit's psychology service. See science/research-ethics-application and science/informed-consent-form.

3.6 Data collection methods and instruments (S10, S11)

Field	Content
Methods	Example: Semi-structured interviews and one focus group
Guide	Example: Interview guide piloted with 2 carers, revised once (Appendix A)
Recording	Example: Audio recorded, field notes written after each session
Duration	Example: Interviews median 52 minutes (range 31 to 84); focus group 95 minutes
Repeat interviews	[Yes / No]
Transcripts returned to participants	Example: No; a summary of themes was offered instead (section 3.10)
Changes during the study	Example: Financial strain question added after interview 5

3.7 Units of study (S12)

Describe the participants or other units (documents, events). Example: 18 carers: 11 spouses or partners, 5 adult children, 2 parents; 7 lived in rural areas.

3.8 Data processing (S13)

Describe transcription, de-identification, data security and checking. Example: professional verbatim transcription under a confidentiality agreement; R1 checked each transcript against the audio and replaced names and places with codes; files stored in the university's secure research store. Link the plan in science/data-management-plan.

3.9 Data analysis (S14)

Phase (Example: reflexive thematic analysis)	What the team did
Familiarisation	Read all transcripts, noted initial ideas
Coding	R1 coded all transcripts, R2 coded 6; 63 codes in the final codebook
Generating themes	Clustered codes into 7 candidate themes on a shared map
Reviewing themes	Checked themes against coded extracts and the full data set; merged to 4
Defining and naming	Wrote a definition and a central organising concept per theme
Writing up	Selected extracts across participants and settings

Software: [e.g. qualitative data analysis software and version].

3.10 Techniques to enhance trustworthiness (S15)

Technique	How used
Reflexive journal	Example: Kept by R1 throughout
Team analysis meetings	Example: Four meetings, decisions logged
Participant engagement	Example: Summary of themes sent to participants who asked for it; 6 replied, none disputed a theme
Thick description	Example: Context reported for each extract
Negative cases	Example: Two carers who described dialysis as a relief were analysed explicitly

Avoid claims of inter-coder reliability statistics unless your approach treats coding as measurement; reflexive approaches generally do not.

4. Results and findings

Present each theme with its central idea, its sub-themes and data extracts that show the range of experience.

4.1 Participants

Code	Relationship	Rurality	Time on home dialysis
C01 (Example)	Spouse	Urban	2 years
C02 (Example)	Adult child	Rural	8 months
[Code]	[Relationship]	[Rural / Urban]	[Duration]

4.2 Synthesis and interpretation (S16)

Theme ID	Theme	Central idea	Sub-themes
TH-01 (Example)	The home becomes a clinic	Treatment reshapes space and routine	Rooms given over to equipment; schedules built around sessions
TH-02 (Example)	Vigilance without rest	Carers feel responsible for every alarm	Night alarms; fear of doing harm
TH-03 (Example)	Skilled but unseen	Carers acquire clinical skill that services do not acknowledge	Training; invisibility in care plans
TH-04 (Example)	Negotiated freedom	Home treatment brings both control and new limits	Flexibility of timing; travel restrictions

4.3 Links to empirical data (S17)

Support each theme with extracts. Example (TH-02): "Every time it beeps at night I am awake before I know why" (C07, spouse). Show variation, including disconfirming accounts.

5. Discussion

The discussion places the findings in the literature and explains what they mean for practice, policy and further research.

5.1 Integration, implications and transferability (S18)

[Explain how the findings confirm, extend or challenge earlier work, the implications, and the contexts to which they may transfer.]

5.2 Limitations (S19)

ID	Limitation	Possible effect on findings
LIM-01 (Example)	All participants spoke the main local language	Experiences of carers needing interpreters are missing
LIM-02 (Example)	Interviewer was a nurse	Participants may have emphasised clinical topics
LIM-03 [ID]	[Limitation]	[Effect]

6. Other information

Item	Content
Conflicts of interest (S20)	[Statement]
Funding and funder role (S21)	[Funder, grant number, role]
Data availability	[What can be shared under the consent, for example the interview guide and codebook only]
Patient and public involvement	[How involved]

7. SRQR item map

Item	Topic (paraphrased)	Section here
S1, S2	Title and abstract	1
S3	Problem	2.1
S4	Purpose or question	2.2
S5	Approach and paradigm	3.1
S6	Researchers and reflexivity	3.2
S7	Context	3.3
S8	Sampling	3.4
S9	Ethical issues	3.5
S10, S11	Collection methods, instruments	3.6
S12	Units of study	3.7
S13	Data processing	3.8
S14	Analysis	3.9
S15	Trustworthiness	3.10
S16, S17	Synthesis, links to data	4
S18, S19	Integration, limitations	5
S20, S21	Conflicts, funding	6

8. COREQ map for interviews and focus groups

Domain	Items	What to report (paraphrased)	Section here
1. Research team and reflexivity	1 to 5	Who collected the data, their credentials, occupation, gender, experience and training	3.2
	6 to 8	Any prior relationship, what participants knew about the researcher, and the researcher's stated assumptions or interests	3.2
2. Study design	9	Methodological orientation	3.1
	10 to 13	How participants were sampled and approached, how many, and who declined or dropped out with reasons	3.4
	14 to 16	Where data were collected, who else was present, and a description of the sample	3.3, 3.7, 4.1
	17 to 23	Interview guide and piloting, repeat interviews, recording, field notes, duration, saturation or stopping rationale, and whether transcripts were returned	3.4, 3.6, 3.10
3. Analysis and findings	24 to 28	Number of coders, coding tree, how themes were derived, software, participant checking	3.9, 3.10
	29 to 32	Quotations with participant codes, consistency of data and findings, clarity of major and minor themes	4

9. Glossary and references

Term	Meaning
Reflexivity	Ongoing examination of how the researcher shapes the research
Theme	A pattern of shared meaning organised around a central concept
Information power	A way to judge sample adequacy from the aim, sample specificity, theory, dialogue quality and analysis strategy
Data saturation	The point at which new data add little new to the analysis, used in some approaches
Transferability	The extent to which findings may apply in other contexts, judged by readers from the description given

Related templates: science/research-ethics-application, science/informed-consent-form, science/data-management-plan, academic/research-paper-imrad, academic/literature-review, academic/response-to-reviewers.

Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR): O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA, Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations, Academic Medicine 2014;89(9):1245-1251, https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 (21 items), and with COREQ: Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J, Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups, International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007;19(6):349-357, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. Both are listed by the EQUATOR Network (https://www.equator-network.org) and were checked in October 2026. Official text: Oxford University Press (both journals), purchase or licensed access: https://academic.oup.com/academicmedicine/article/89/9/1245/8351279 and, for COREQ, through the DOI link above. This template uses item numbers and paraphrased topics only, in original text, and reproduces no checklist wording. The worked example is fictional. This is a reporting format, not research-ethics or legal advice. Template licence: MIT.

Plantillas relacionadas

Ciencia e investigación