ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2026
How and by whom are multiple language-related issues managed in transnational qualitative research using content analysis? A scoping review.
Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multilingual, transnational qualitative research is increasingly common across the health and social sciences. However, it presents significant methodological challenges related to translation, validity and data interpretation, which remain insufficiently explored in the literature. Although some recommendations exist regarding research protocol translation, the role of interpreters and the timing of translation, no comprehensive approaches have been established to guide consistent language management across all phases of the research. Objective: To map the strategies researchers use to manage languages during data collection preparation, data collection, and content analysis in transnational qualitative studies. Information sources: MEDLINE-PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycInfo, and Scopus were searched up to October 2024. Methods: A scoping review of qualitative studies using content analysis, conducted in various countries and languages. Data were extracted and summarised according to how languages were managed across three phases of the research process: data collection preparation, conduction, and content analysis. Using both detailed and overarching approaches, key patterns in researchers' practices were synthesised narratively. Results: Between 2001 and 2024, 123 transnational qualitative studies were published. Only 35 described language management during preparation for data collection, revealing two patterns: developing the interview guide in a single language (typically English) and then translating it, or developing it simultaneously in all study languages. During data collection, local languages were predominantly used, while 33 studies reported who conducted the interviews, involving either general research personnel or individuals with explicit language expertise. Language management during content analysis was described in nearly half of the studies. Overall, only 11 studies reported practices across all three phases, most commonly following a process of instrument development in English, data collection and transcription in local languages, and translation into English for analysis. Conclusions: Transnational qualitative research using content analysis is increasing, yet language management issues remain insufficiently reported. An analysis of the methods described in available studies identified recurring patterns across the three main phases of the research process. These patterns may represent a first step towards a critical discussion on developing methodological guidelines, reporting standards, and best practices to promote harmonised methodological guidance and strengthen the validity and reliability of transnational qualitative research. Registration: Not registered.
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.