ArticleQualitative health research2026
Constructing Research Quality: On the Performativity of the COREQ Checklist.
Article in Qualitative health research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding factors that could influence feasibility and acceptability of brief CAT for adults who self-harm: A qualitative exploration using the theoretical framework of acceptability.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2026Trial
- Understanding Patients' Experiences of Digital Ethics in a Digitalised Healthcare System.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Moral leadership in neonatal nursing: a qualitative narrative study of ethical decision-making in NICUs.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Embracing complexity by reducing rigidity: guiding principles for the intersection of implementation science and qualitative research.Implementation science : IS · 2026Article
- Facilitating transition between adolescent and adult psychiatry: patient and parent experiences from a jointly run ward for 16-25-year-olds in Germany.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2026Article
- Engaging Patient and Caregiver Partners in Codeveloping a Patient Educational Video for Improving Clostridioides difficile Infection Education: Participatory Co-Design Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Challenges of community health nursing practice in the Primary Health Care network of Iran: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Green Landscapes of Care: The Potential of Gardens to Support the Well-Being of Asylum Seekers in Ireland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.