Ensuring Excellence

A Systematic Scoping Review of Quality Assurance in Biomedical Qualitative Research Paradigm

Bibliographic Data

ID16819433
AuthorsHamidreza Khankeh (Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Shima Shirozhan (0000-0001-6840-1300, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, corresponding author), Mahdieh Motie (0000-0001-8132-7416, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences), Mohammad Saatchi (0000-0003-2744-9927, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences), Juliet Roudini (0000-0003-3552-574X, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences), Ulrich Dirnagl (0000-0003-0755-6119, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin)
Year2026
Volume25
Publication date2026-01-19
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1609-4069 • E-ISSN: 1609-4069
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/16094069251414233
OpenAlexW7127270557
LanguageEN
References cited58

Background: Ensuring the quality of qualitative research has led to the development of various approaches and criteria, but has also sparked challenges and disagreements. This study aims to review existing knowledge on quality assurance in biomedical qualitative research. Method: This systematic scoping review study was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley approach in five stages. Relevant articles were accessed through keywords including “Trustworthiness”، “Research quality”، “Research integrity”، “Responsible research”، “Rigor”، “Qualitative research”، “Qualitative study”، “Qualitative paradigm”، “Robustness”، “Soundness” in PubMed، Embase، Scopus، Web of Science، CINAHL databases. The search was completed through the Google Scholar search engine, and highly relevant articles and key journals were referenced. Full-text English-language biomedical articles relevant to the research objective were included and findings were presented based on specific research questions. Result: The review highlights that the quality of qualitative research remains a significant concern for researchers. However, efforts to address these concerns have been inconsistent, leading to conflicts in terminology, definitions, and strategy implementations. Criticisms and challenges have often overshadowed proposed solutions and recommendations, affecting both paradigmatic and methodological aspects. While some strategies have been critiqued and discussed, researchers have also encountered specific situational issues that have been addressed accordingly. Conclusion: Our review indicates that ensuring the quality of qualitative research has been contentious since this methodology’s inception. Given the significant impact of these studies’ findings, it is essential for future investigations to address these conflicts and propose effective solutions. It is recommended that further investigations be conducted, encouraging researchers to utilize the findings of this study to refine methods for evaluating and enhancing the quality of qualitative research. These efforts should align with the naturalistic paradigm and take into account the unique characteristics of each methodology

CINAHL · Qualitative research · Quality (philosophy) · Quality assurance · Situational ethics · Systematic review · Health Policy Implementation Science · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics