# 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*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Name your qualitative approach (for example reflexive thematic
  analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis, grounded theory,
  ethnography) and the paradigm behind it first. Most later choices
  (sampling, saturation or not, coding, trustworthiness) follow from it.
- SRQR fits every qualitative design; COREQ is written for interviews and
  focus groups. Fill the main sections for SRQR, then complete the COREQ
  map in section 8 if you used interviews or focus groups.
- Write the reflexivity section (3.2) honestly: who the researchers are,
  how they relate to participants and how that shaped the data.
- Never put identifying details in quotations. Use participant codes,
  remove place names and rare job titles, and follow your ethics approval.
- The worked example (a fictional interview study with family carers of
  people on home dialysis in the fictional Fenmoor Health District) shows
  the level of detail expected. Delete it before submission.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Track the manuscript or study report as a controlled document. Tie it to the ethics approval and the frozen analysis files. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Record each draft and what changed in the analysis or interpretation; qualitative analysis evolves, so keep the audit trail. -->

| 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 |

## Contents

<!-- Guidance: Keep in sync with the headings below. -->

1. [Title and abstract](#1-title-and-abstract)
2. [Introduction](#2-introduction)
3. [Methods](#3-methods)
4. [Results and findings](#4-results-and-findings)
5. [Discussion](#5-discussion)
6. [Other information](#6-other-information)
7. [SRQR item map](#7-srqr-item-map)
8. [COREQ map for interviews and focus groups](#8-coreq-map-for-interviews-and-focus-groups)
9. [Glossary and references](#9-glossary-and-references)
10. [Standard and licence note](#standard-and-licence-note)

## 1. Title and abstract

<!-- Guidance: SRQR S1 and S2. Say in the title or abstract that the study is qualitative and name the approach or data collection method. Summarise the study in the journal's abstract format. -->

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

<!-- Guidance: SRQR S3 and S4. Describe the problem, what is known and why a qualitative approach suits the question. Then state the purpose or research question. -->

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

<!-- Guidance: SRQR S5 to S15. Describe what you did and why, so that readers can judge credibility and transferability. Justify choices rather than only listing them. -->

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)

<!-- Guidance: Describe the researchers' backgrounds, assumptions and relationships with participants, and how these may have shaped data and interpretation. COREQ items 1 to 8 ask for the interviewer's details. -->

| 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)

<!-- Guidance: Name the analysis method, who coded, the software, and how codes became themes. Give enough steps for a reader to follow the analytic path. -->

| 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].

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  T["Transcripts (15 data sets)"] --> C["Codes (63)"]
  C --> K["Candidate themes (7)"]
  K --> R["Reviewed themes (4)"]
  R --> W["Report with extracts"]
  J["Reflexive journal"] -.-> C
  J -.-> K
```

### 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

<!-- Guidance: SRQR S16 and S17. Present the main findings as interpretation, not a list of topics, and support each with data extracts from several participants. Show how the themes relate to each other. -->

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

<!-- Guidance: SRQR S18 and S19. Relate findings to earlier work and theory, explain implications and transferability, and state limitations honestly. -->

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

<!-- Guidance: SRQR S20 and S21. State conflicts of interest and funding with the funder's role. Add data availability in line with consent. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: A working index of where each SRQR item is reported. Topic labels are short paraphrases; use the official checklist with page numbers when you submit. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: COREQ has 32 items in three domains. Use this map to check nothing is missing, then complete the official checklist. Topics below are paraphrased in original words. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Define terms that readers from other disciplines may not know and list method 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.