How well are dental qualitative studies involving interviews and focus groups reported?

Constructing Research Quality: On the Performativity of the COREQ Checklist

The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist was designed to enhance quality in the reporting of interview and focus group studies, and it is widely endorsed by journals and publishers. However, it has also been heavily critiqued for its design and application in qualitative health research communities. In this article, we conduct detailed critical text analyses of eight articles and their accompanying self-reported COREQ responses and discuss the performative force of the checklist on the appearance of research quality. The analyses of authors' rhetorical strategies in articles and checklist responses indicated that they sometimes provide misleading, inconsistent, or excessive information, prioritizing checklist completion over substantive engagement with quality principles. While intended to standardize reporting, COREQ's rigid structure often led to overcompliance or inappropriate responses from authors, who strived to meet its criteria, even when they were irrelevant or unsuitable. This "overobedience" reflects a desire to maintain credibility and avoid scrutiny, yet it undermines the depth and rigor of qualitative research. COREQ is an epistemic device, shaping researcher practices and identities beyond its stated purpose, and while COREQ aims to enhance accountability, it perpetuates epistemic dominance, eroding authenticity and critical reflection in qualitative research, ultimately exacerbating the very problems it seeks to solve.

The phenomenological approach in dentistry - a narrative review

PURPOSE

Phenomenology is a branch of philosophy that focuses on human lived experience. Illness including dental diseases can affect this living experience. Within the dental literature, there is very little reported on the use of phenomenology compared to other healthcare sciences. Hence, the aim was to review the literature and provide an overview of various applications of phenomenology in dental research.

METHODS

This study was a narrative review using literature in the last 10 years identified by web-based search on PubMed and Scopus using keywords. A total of 33 articles that were closely related to the field and application in dentistry were included. The methodology, main results, and future research recommendations, if applicable, were extracted and reviewed.

RESULTS

The authors in this study had identified several areas such as orofacial pain and pain control research, dental anxiety, dental education, oral healthcare perceptions and access, living with dental diseases and dental treatment experience in which the phenomenological method was used to gain an in-depth understanding of the topic.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several advantages of using the phenomenological research method, such as the small sample size needed, the diverse and unique perspective that can be obtained and the ability to improve current understanding, especially from the first-person perspective.

Is thematic analysis used well in health psychology? A critical review of published research, with recommendations for quality practice and reporting

Despite the persistent dominance of a 'scientific psychology' paradigm in health psychology, the use of qualitative research continues to grow. Qualitative approaches are often based on fundamentally different values from (post)positivistempiricism, raising important considerations for quality, and whether qualitative work adheres to, and is judged by, appropriate publication standards. Thematic analysis (TA) has become a particularly popular method in qualitative health psychology, but poor practice is widespread. To support high quality, methodologically coherent TA practice and reporting, we critically reviewed 100 systematically selected papers reporting TA, published in five prominent health psychology journals. Our review assessed reported practice, and considered this in relation to methodological and quality recommendations. We identified 10 common areas of problematic practice in the reviewed papers, the majority citing reflexive TA. Considering the role of three 'arbiters of quality' in a peer review publication system - authors, reviewers, and editors - we developed 20 recommendations for authors, to support them in conducting and reporting high quality TA research, with associated questions for reviewers and editors to consider when evaluating TA manuscripts for publication. We end with considerations for facilitating better qualitative research, and enriching the understandings and knowledge base from which health psychology is practiced.

Interrelationship between dental clinicians and laboratory technicians: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Effective communication among members of the dental team is essential for the delivery of high-quality dental care. However, an in-depth understanding of issues concerning the interrelationship between dental clinicians and laboratory technicians has not been previously undertaken. Therefore, the aim of the study was to explore factors influencing the interrelationship between dental clinicians and laboratory technicians.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with dental clinicians and laboratory technicians using purposeful snowball sampling. Two trained researchers conducted the interviews based on a pre-piloted topic guide. The interviews were conducted via video conferencing platform, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were taken during the interviews. Framework Methodology was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

A total of 20 dental clinicians and laboratory technicians were interviewed. The average interview duration was 37 min. Participants mainly reported negative encounters and highlighted the importance of training and exposure, collaborative learning, and alignment of expectations of both parties in terms of cost of laboratory work, turnaround time, and patient preferences. The relationship between dental clinicians and laboratory technicians depends largely on effective teamwork dynamics and open communication channels. Increased workload, workforce shortage, availability of digital systems, management policies, and financial challenges were emphasized as organizational factors affecting the interrelationship between both groups. Participants highlighted the importance of shadowing, mentorship, education courses, joint discussions, patient-technician rapport, and adoption of digital technology for fostering collaborative practices between the professions.

CONCLUSIONS

A multitude of factors influencing the dental clinician-laboratory interrelationship at individual, interpersonal and organizational levels were identified. This study highlights the need to build a transformative relationship underpinned by mutual trust and respect. Such a collaborative relationship will facilitate optimal patient care and successful treatment outcomes. The outcome of this study can help stakeholders identify solutions for enhancing the interrelationship among the dental team, to ultimately improve patient care and efficiency of dental services.

Quality, Equity and Partnerships in Mixed Methods and Qualitative Research during Seven Years of Implementing the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative in 18 Countries

Introduction: Qualitative studies are often inadequately reported, making it difficult to judge their appropriateness for decision making in public health. We assessed the publication characteristics and quality of reporting of qualitative and mixed-method studies from the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative (SORT IT), a global partnership for operational research capacity building. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of publications to assess the qualitative component using an adapted version of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist. Results: In 67 publications involving 18 countries, 32 journals and 13 public health themes, 55 were mixed-methods studies and 12 were qualitative studies. First authorship from low-and-middle-income (LMIC) countries was present in 64 (96%), LMIC last authorship in 55 (82%), and female first authorship in 30 (45%). The mean LMIC institutions represented per publication was five (range 1-11). Sixty-three (94%) publications were open access. Reporting quality was graded as 'good' to 'excellent' in 60 (89%) publications, 'fair' in five (8%) and 'poor' in two (3%). Conclusion: Most SORT IT publications adhered to COREQ standards, while supporting gender equity in authorship and the promotion of LMIC research leadership. SORT IT plays an important role in ensuring quality of evidence for decision making to improve public health.

Reasons for (not) choosing dental treatments—A qualitative study based on patients’ perspective

Oral health is increasingly seen as a public health challenge due to the remarkable prevalence of oral diseases worldwide, the impact on general health, and health consequences that can arise for individuals. Compared to other health services, oral health services are usually not fully covered by statutory health insurance, which is seen as one reason in decision-making on dental treatments. Nevertheless, patients’ reasons for treatment decisions are not well understood although they can provide valuable insights. The objective of this study was to identify reasons of choice for dental treatments and to explore patients’ view on cost coverage in Germany. We conducted four focus group interviews with a total of 27 participants. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data was analyzed performing conventional content analysis. As part of a qualitative analysis, subcategories and categories were formed from identified reasons using an inductive approach. Our study supports and expands research in exploring patients’ decision-making on dental treatments. It highlights a variety of 53 reasons of choice for dental treatments from patients’ perspective, split in two categories “health care service”, and “dentist & dental office”. First category includes reasons regarding dental care performance (subcategories: “preconditions”, “treatment”, “costs”, and “outcomes”). Second category demonstrates reasons regarding dentists, office structures and processes (subcategories: "professional skills", "social skills", "office staff & equipment", and "office processes”). Reasons named “most important” by the participants are out-of-pocket payments, dentists’ training, and a relationship of trust between patient and dentist. Although the participants use incentive measures to lower financial burden, several perceived challenges exist. Identified reasons for choosing dental treatments provide a basis for further studies to quantify the relevance of these reasons from patients’ perspective. Based on this, the various reasons identified can be considered in future policies to improve patients’ utilization behavior, which can range from improved information sources to increased incentive measures.

Prioritising NHS dental treatments: a mixed-methods study

Objectives To determine the priorities of patients and dental professionals concerning NHS dental treatments, the factors influencing prioritisation and the willingness to contribute towards the cost of NHS dental treatments.Methods Focus groups and interviews involving patients and practitioners informed the development of a piloted questionnaire concerning the priorities for NHS dental treatments. Patients attending three purposively selected dental settings in London and Kent, as well as dental professionals working within a large London dental hospital were recruited to participate in this initial qualitative phase. Qualitative interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework approach. Subsequently, another sample of patients and dental professionals within the three dental settings and dental hospital completed a questionnaire. Regression models were used to determine the predictors of perceived priorities and willingness to contribute to NHS dental costs based on the questionnaire data.Results Three focus groups (n = 9) and one semi-structured interview with patients and one focus group of dental professionals (four general dental practitioners and two dental nurses) were conducted. Participants prioritised NHS dental treatments that improve quality of life and social wellbeing. Factors influencing the prioritisation of NHS dental treatments included: individual responsibility for oral health care; concerns about self-esteem and confidence; age-related issues; and the role of treatment in prevention of future dental and general health problems, with financial concerns underpinning these themes. Out of the 455 questionnaires completed, 414 (383 patients and 31 general dental practitioners) were included in the analysis. The provision of emergency dental treatment for children was afforded the highest priority among both patients (59%) and dentists (74.2%). Both groups of participants felt that full funding for most NHS dental treatments should be prioritised for children (<18 years old) rather than adults (p <0.05).Conclusion Participants prioritised NHS dental treatments that would improve social wellbeing and quality of life, with an emphasis on full coverage for NHS treatment for children and young people. Policy makers should account for these preferences in the planning of NHS dental services.

Establishing the research agenda for oral healthcare using the Dialogue Model-patient involvement in a joint research agenda with practitioners

Engagement of patients in the composition of a research agenda is essential to reduce the gap between research and practice and thereby generate more impact. The aim of this study was to develop a research agenda for oral health. Experienced challenges and needs with oral health(care) of practitioners and patients formed the input for the research agenda. We describe the identification of research priorities of patients and the integration of these with previously identified research priorities of practitioners, using a participatory multi‐phase approach for research agenda setting (Dialogue Model). Via focus group discussions, 32 research topics were generated. Next, 1495 patients prioritized these topics in an online survey. In a dialogue meeting, a joint research agenda of eight research topics was agreed upon. Many topics were contributed by patients, but were prioritized by both stakeholder groups. The most important topics concerned behavior change and the relation between general and oral health. Other topics that were prioritized covered affordability and accessibility as well as health system research and organizational issues. By considering different perspectives, this research agenda has uncovered directions for future research that go beyond evident research topics, as many topics are currently underrepresented in oral healthcare research.

Person centred care provision and care planning in chronic kidney disease: which outcomes matter? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies : Care planning in CKD: which outcomes matter?

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Explore priorities related to outcomes and barriers of adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) regarding person centred care and care planning.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of qualitative studies.

SEARCH STRATEGY & SOURCES

In July 2018 six bibliographic databases, and reference lists of included articles were searched for qualitative studies that included adults with CKD stages 1-5, not on dialysis or conservative management, without a previous kidney transplantation.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Three independent reviewers extracted and inductively coded data using thematic synthesis. Reporting quality was assessed using the COREQ and the review reported according to PRISMA and ENTREQ statements.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies involving 1493 participants were eligible. The period after diagnosis of CKD is characterized by feelings of uncertainty, social isolation, financial burden, resentment and fear of the unknown. Patients show interest in ways to return to normality and remain in control of their health in order to avoid further deterioration of kidney function. However, necessary information is often unavailable or incomprehensible. Although patients and healthcare professionals share the predominant interest of whether or not dialysis or transplantation is necessary, patients value many more outcomes that are often unrecognized by their healthcare professionals. We identified 4 themes with 6 subthemes that summarize these findings: 'pursuing normality and control' ('pursuing normality'; 'a search for knowledge'); 'prioritizing outcomes' ('reaching kidney failure'; 'experienced health'; 'social life'; 'work and economic productivity'); 'predicting the future'; and 'realising what matters'. Reporting quality was moderate for most included studies.

LIMITATIONS

Exclusion of non-English articles.

CONCLUSIONS

The realisation that patients' priorities do not match those of the healthcare professionals, in combination with the prognostic ambiguity, confirms fatalistic perceptions of not being in control when living with CKD. These insights may contribute to greater understanding of patients' perspectives and a more person-centred approach in healthcare prioritization and care planning within CKD care.

A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake

BACKGROUND

Reviews of qualitative studies allow for deeper understanding of concepts and findings beyond the single qualitative studies. Concerns on study reporting quality led to the publication of the COREQ-guidelines for qualitative studies in 2007, followed by the ENTREQ-guidelines for qualitative reviews in 2012. The aim of this meta-review is to: 1) investigate the uptake of the COREQ- and ENTREQ- checklists in qualitative reviews; and 2) compare the quality of reporting of the primary qualitative studies included within these reviews prior- and post COREQ-publication.

METHODS

Reviews were searched on 02-Sept-2020 and categorized as (1) COREQ- or (2) ENTREQ-using, (3) using both, or (4) non-COREQ/ENTREQ. Proportions of usage were calculated over time. COREQ-scores of the primary studies included in these reviews were compared prior- and post COREQ-publication using T-test with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

1.695 qualitative reviews were included (222 COREQ, 369 ENTREQ, 62 both COREQ/ENTREQ and 1.042 non-COREQ/ENTREQ), spanning 12 years (2007-2019) demonstrating an exponential publication rate. The uptake of the ENTREQ in reviews is higher than the COREQ (respectively 28% and 17%), and increases over time. COREQ-scores could be extracted from 139 reviews (including 2.775 appraisals). Reporting quality improved following the COREQ-publication with 13 of the 32 signalling questions showing improvement; the average total score increased from 15.15 to 17.74 (p-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The number of qualitative reviews increased exponentially, but the uptake of the COREQ and ENTREQ was modest overall. Primary qualitative studies show a positive trend in reporting quality, which may have been facilitated by the publication of the COREQ.

Two sets of qualitative research reporting guidelines: An analysis of the shortfalls

Findings from qualitative research may make valuable contributions to the evidence informing healthcare practice. Qualitative research methodologies and methods, however, are less familiar to health researchers and research consumers when compared with quantitative methods. Qualitative research reporting guidelines and their merit have been hotly debated for at least two decades. Herein I discuss two sets of qualitative research reporting guidelines endorsed by many high tiered health research journals: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research and Standards for reporting qualitative research. Six aspects of the two sets of guidelines are compared. The first aspect is the focus of the guidelines. The latter five aspects are items included in the guidelines: reflexivity, participant sampling and saturation, data collection, member checking, and data analysis. Except for reflexivity, these items were selected for comparison as they include features of, or strategies to, enhance the rigor of qualitative research that are applicable within some but not all qualitative methodologies. Reflexivity, a central feature of rigor within all qualitative research, is discussed for its suboptimal representation in both sets of reporting guidelines. Without regular and critical review of reporting guidelines, efforts to promote the design, conduct, and reporting of rigorous qualitative health research to support evidence-informed practice may be undermined. Moreover, for qualitative research reporting guidelines to be useful, they must be applied appropriately and in a flexible manner by researchers and reviewers. This paper has implications for researchers, journal editors, reviewers, and research consumers.

A critical review of qualitative research publications in dental implants from 2006 to 2020

OBJECTIVES

This critical review is aimed to investigate the current status of qualitative research in dental implant research and to explore the quality of available information.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was done on the journal databases to identify dental implant research articles that used qualitative methodology during 2006 and 2020. The resulting articles were appraised against the checklist offered by the Critical Appraisal Skills programme (CASP) tool. Also, the theories evolved from the research were reviewed to understand the value of this methodology in dental implant research.

RESULTS

Twenty-five (25) articles out of the 8,421 original results were identified as using qualitative methodology. The researchers have sought to identify the views of patients about tooth loss, dental implants, and the information they receive from dental professionals, and views of the dentists about dental implant practice. The review found that there were few inconsistencies in the quality of such research especially the qualitative data analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity of qualitative research in dental implants remains low; however, the quality has improved in the past two decades. Despite these improvements, there is still a lack of research in understanding both patients' and dentists' views on dental implant procedures and management.

Development of 'My Retainers' mobile application: Triangulation of two qualitative methods

OBJECTIVE

Diligent wear of removable orthodontic retainers requires prolonged adherence and is invariably necessary to preserve optimal results. Patient-informed behaviour-change interventions represent a promising and novel means of enhancing adherence to removable retainer wear. The aim of this study was to describe the development of a patient-informed mobile application designed to enhance retainer wear.

METHODS

App development encompassed consideration of participant preferences, social media posts, available interventions and behaviour change theories. Qualitative methods including analysis of publicly-available retainer-related posts on Twitter (n = 827) and one-to-one interviews were undertaken. Audio-recorded one-to-one interviews were undertaken to identify patient preferences in relation to features, content and design of the application. A criterion-based purposive sample of participants wearing vacuum-formed retainers for at least 4 years was used (n = 15). Thematic analysis of transcribed data was undertaken. These data were triangulated to inform design and content of the application.

RESULTS

The need to facilitate communication with the treating clinician, responsive reminder and tracking systems, and access to useful and engaging written and visual information, in addition to other personalised and interactive features were considered important. Concerns related to retainer wear shared on Twitter informed an exhaustive list of frequently-asked questions. Application features were mapped to relevant theoretical constructs. Determinants of existing behavioural change theories were also used to link application features to retainer wear and maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

A holistic process involving both patient and professional input can be useful in informing the development of mobile applications. The orthodontic application ("My Retainers") will undergo further scrutiny in relation to its effectiveness in inducing behavioural change and concerning patient experiences prior to finalisation.