SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2026
Assessing Quality of Action Research Using the Quality Assessment Action Research Checklist (QuARC): A Hybrid Systematic Narrative Review.
Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
aimTo evaluate the quality of action research studies using the Quality Assessment Action Research Checklist (QuARC) and to assess its utility as a tool for quality appraisal.
designA hybrid systematic narrative review following Turnbull et al.'s six-stage methodology and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidance. DATA SOURCES: Scopus was searched for author self-identified action research studies published between January 2020 and March 2024. REVIEW
methodsTwo reviewers independently selected studies meeting inclusion criteria: health science action research papers addressing any or all of QuARC's four quality factors. A scoring system was used to capture each of QuARC's 17 quality items, which was scored as 0 (absent), 0.5 (partial) or 1 (comprehensive). Narrative synthesis was undertaken across the four QuARC domains.
resultsThirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Reporting frequencies across QuARC were: Context (92.5%, mean = 3.7/4), Quality of Relationships (55% mean = 2.2/4), Quality of Action Research Process (62.5% mean = 2.5/4), and Quality of Outcomes (62.5% mean = 3.1/5). Reporting gaps were most evident in reflexive co-analysis, relational evaluation and explicit theoretical contribution.
conclusionGlobal reporting of rigour and quality in action research remains inconsistent. QuARC functioned both as an appraisal instrument and as an analytic lens, revealing systematic patterns in how action research privileges practical change over theoretical articulation and reflexive relational work. Further refinement and validation are recommended to strengthen its reliability as an appraisal tool. IMPLICATIONS: Findings highlighted a critical need to establish a standardised, validated approach to assess quality in action research. Adoption of QuARC can enhance consistency, clarity and comparability across studies, strengthening the evidence base for action research methodologies. IMPACT: This first systematic synthesis of QuARC's application provides an evidence base for its further development. This lays foundations for international standards in quality appraisal, strengthening the credibility, reproducibility and influence of action research.
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.