Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
J Oncol Pract. 2019 Oct;15(10):523-529. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00125. Epub 2019 Aug 6.
Oncology has made significant advances in standardizing how clinical research is conducted and reported. The advancement of such research that improves oncology practice requires an expansion of not only our research questions but also the research methods we deploy to address them. In particular, there is increasing recognition of the value of qualitative research methods to develop more comprehensive understandings of phenomena of interest and to describe and explain underlying motivations and potential causes of specific outcomes. However, qualitative researchers in oncology have lacked guidance to produce and evaluate methodologically rigorous qualitative publications. In this review, we highlight characteristics of high-quality, methodologically rigorous reports of qualitative research, provide criteria for readers and reviewers to appraise such publications critically, and proffer guidance for preparing publications for submission to . Namely, the quality of qualitative research in oncology practice is best assessed according to key domains that include fitness of purpose, theoretical framework, methodological rigor, ethical concerns, analytic comprehensives, and the dissemination/application of findings. In particular, determinations of rigor in qualitative research in oncology practice should consider definitions of the appropriateness of qualitative methods for the research objectives against the setting of current literature, use of an appropriate theoretical framework, inclusion of a rigorous and innovative measurement plan, application of appropriate analytic techniques, and clear explanation and dissemination of the research findings.
肿瘤学在规范临床研究的实施和报告方面取得了重大进展。为了提高肿瘤学实践，此类研究需要不仅扩展我们的研究问题，而且还需要扩展我们用来解决这些问题的研究方法。特别是，越来越认识到定性研究方法的价值，这些方法可以更全面地了解感兴趣的现象，并描述和解释特定结果的潜在动机和潜在原因。然而，肿瘤学中的定性研究人员缺乏产生和评估方法严谨的定性出版物的指导。在这篇综述中，我们强调了高质量、方法严谨的定性研究报告的特点，为读者和审稿人提供了批判性评估此类出版物的标准，并为向 提交出版物提供了指导。即，根据包括目的适应性、理论框架、方法严谨性、伦理问题、分析全面性以及研究结果的传播/应用在内的关键领域，最好评估肿瘤学实践中的定性研究质量。特别是，在肿瘤学实践中的定性研究的严谨性的确定应考虑将定性方法的适当性定义为针对当前文献背景下的研究目标，使用适当的理论框架，包括严格和创新的测量计划，应用适当的分析技术，以及清楚地解释和传播研究结果。
