中医药领域定性访谈研究报告质量评价与文献分析

目的评价中医药领域定性访谈研究中文文献报告质量，为定性访谈的规范报告提供建议。方法检索中国知网、维普中文期刊全文数据库、万方数据知识服务平台自建库至2019年10月10日有关中医药领域定性访谈研究中文文献，采用《定性研究统一报告标准：个体访谈和焦点组访谈的32项清单》（COREQ）和《定性研究的报告标准：基于推荐的综合》（SRQR）条目对文献报告进行质量评价。结果最终纳入文献22篇，COREQ标准中研究团队和自省性的平均报告百分比为11.4%，研究设计为44.2%,分析与结果为48.5%,其中报告率为0的有条目7（参与者对访谈者的了解）、条目8（访谈者特征）、条目18（重复访谈）。SRQR标准中题目和摘要平均报告百分比为88.7%、前言为86.4%、方法为55.4%、结果/发现为77.3%、讨论为56.9%、其他为40.9%，报告率为0的条目为S20（利益冲突）。结论中医药领域定性研究方法有待进一步规范，建议今后定性研究报告在设计、实施操作、结果报告等方面参考COREQ和SRQR等相关标准。

Objective To evaluate reporting quality of Chinese literature on qualitative interview research in the field of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and to make suggestion for normalized report of qualitative interview research. Methods Chinese literature on qualitative interview research in the TCM field in CNKI, VIP and Wanfang was retrieved. Retrieval time was from the establishment of the databases until October 10, 2019. The quality of literature reports was evaluated by using items in Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). Results Twenty-two literatures were included. The average reporting rates of research team and reflexivity, research design, analysis and results in the COREQ standard were 11.4%, 44.2% and 48.5%, respectively. There were item 7 (participants’ knowledge of the interviewer), item 8 (interviewer characteristics) and item 18 (repeat interviews) with a reporting rate of 0. The average reporting rates of the title and abstract, introduction, methods, results/findings, discussion, and others in the SRQR standard were 88.7%, 86.4%, 55.4%, 77.3%, 56.9% and 40.9%, respectively. The item with a reporting rate of 0 was S20 (conflicts of interest). Conclusion Qualitative research methods in the field of TCM still need further normalization. It is suggested that the COREQ and SRQR standards should be referred for design, implementation and results report in future qualitative research reports.