Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research
  Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login  
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 2122       

   Table of Contents      
CORRESPONDENCE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 140  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 788

Need for & use of guidelines for reporting qualitative research


Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth G.S. Medical College & K.E.M. Hospital, Mumbai 400 012, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication3-Mar-2015

Correspondence Address:
N J Gogtay
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth G.S. Medical College & K.E.M. Hospital, Mumbai 400 012, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 25758579

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Gogtay N J, Thatte U M, Thaker S, Deshpande S. Need for & use of guidelines for reporting qualitative research. Indian J Med Res 2014;140:788

How to cite this URL:
Gogtay N J, Thatte U M, Thaker S, Deshpande S. Need for & use of guidelines for reporting qualitative research. Indian J Med Res [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Aug 22];140:788. Available from: http://www.ijmr.org.in/text.asp?2014/140/6/788/152466

Sir

The article by Mishra N.N. et al[1] touches upon an important area of knowledge and attitudes of mental health research among health care professionals who carry out research in psychiatry. The tools used are two questionnaires; one that assessed the knowledge of informed consent guidelines and the attitudes of researchers toward them, and the second that addressed the knowledge regarding confidentiality protection guidelines and attitudes relevant to their implementation and interpretation. The rate of verbal consent was 62/121 (51.2%), but only one fourth [31/121; 25.6%] eventually completed the study. The source of the questions used in the questionnaire (mentioned only in the abstract) is stated to be prominent guidelines (which are not listed). What is not mentioned in the paper is the validation of both questionnaires; for content, criterion or construct as also assessment of reliability. While criterion validity may not be applicable in the present case in the absence of a "gold standard", it would have been interesting to know how content and construct were validated. For concepts like informed consent and confidentiality, both these would be important. A study by Boynton and Greenhalgh [2] has outlined the use of a ten point checklist that could critically appraise whether a questionnaire met all requirements right from the research question and study design to analysis, interpretation and conclusions. Guidelines also exist on the peer review of manuscripts that contain qualitative research such as the RATS guidelines [3] . Qualitative research involves the reporting of complex phenomena. Similar to the CONSORT guidelines for reporting of quantitative research, the answer likely lies in the use of checklists such as the COREQ (developed for interviews and focus groups) to improve reporting quality and indirectly improved conduct of qualitative research [4] .

 
   References Top

1.
Mishra NN, Bhatia T, Kumar N, Nimgaonkar VL, Parker LS, Deshpande SN. Knowledge & attitudes of mental health professionals regarding psychiatric research. Indian J Med Res 2014; 139 : 246-51.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T. Selecting, designing and reporting your questionnaire. Br Med J 2004; 328 : 1312-5.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
The RATS guidelines. How to peer review a qualitative manuscript. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences, 2 nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2003. p. 219-35.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19 : 349-57.  Back to cited text no. 4
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed414    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded195    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal