<p>Abstract</p><p>Purpose&nbsp;</p><p>Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.</p><p>Method&nbsp;</p><p>The authors identified guidelines, reporting standards, and critical appraisal criteria for qualitative research by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google through July 2013; reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources; and contacting experts. Specifically, two authors reviewed a sample of sources to generate an initial set of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research. Through an iterative process of reviewing sources, modifying the set of items, and coding all sources for items, the authors prepared a near-final list of items and descriptions and sent this list to five external reviewers for feedback. The final items and descriptions included in the reporting standards reflect this feedback.</p><p>Results&nbsp;</p><p>The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) consists of 21 items. The authors define and explain key elements of each item and provide examples from recently published articles to illustrate ways in which the standards can be met.</p><p>Conclusions&nbsp;</p><p>The SRQR aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research. These standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings.</p><p>Qualitative research contributes to the literature in many disciplines by describing, interpreting, and generating theories about social interactions and individual experiences as they occur in natural, rather than experimental, situations.1&ndash;3&nbsp;Some recent examples include studies of professional dilemmas,4&nbsp;medical students&rsquo; early experiences of workplace learning,5&nbsp;patients&rsquo; experiences of disease and interventions,6&ndash;8&nbsp;and patients&rsquo; perspectives about incident disclosures.9&nbsp;The purpose of qualitative research is to understand the perspectives/experiences of individuals or groups and the contexts in which these perspectives or experiences are situated.1,2,10</p><p>Qualitative research is increasingly common and valued in the medical and medical education literature.1,10&ndash;13&nbsp;However, the quality of such research can be difficult to evaluate because of incomplete reporting of key elements.14,15<em>Quality</em>&nbsp;is multifaceted and includes consideration of the importance of the research question, the rigor of the research methods, the appropriateness and salience of the inferences, and the clarity and completeness of reporting.16,17&nbsp;Although there is much debate about standards for methodological rigor in qualitative research,13,14,18&ndash;20&nbsp;there is widespread agreement about the need for clear and complete reporting.14,21,22&nbsp;Optimal reporting would enable editors, reviewers, other researchers, and practitioners to critically appraise qualitative studies and apply and synthesize the results. One important step in improving the quality of reporting is to formulate and define clear reporting standards.</p><p>Authors have proposed guidelines for the quality of qualitative research, including those in the fields of medical education,23&ndash;25&nbsp;clinical and health services research,26&ndash;28&nbsp;and general education research.29,30&nbsp;Yet in nearly all cases, the authors do not describe how the guidelines were created, and often fail to distinguish reporting quality from the other facets of quality (e.g., the research question or methods). Several authors suggest standards for reporting qualitative research,15,20,29&ndash;33&nbsp;but their articles focus on a subset of qualitative data collection methods (e.g., interviews), fail to explain how the authors developed the reporting criteria, narrowly construe qualitative research (e.g., thematic analysis) in ways that may exclude other approaches, and/or lack specific examples to help others see how the standards might be achieved. Thus, there remains a compelling need for defensible and broadly applicable standards for reporting qualitative research.</p><p>We designed and carried out the present study to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research through a rigorous synthesis of published articles and expert recommendations.</p><p>Method</p><p>We formulated standards for reporting qualitative research by using a rigorous and systematic approach in which we reviewed previously proposed recommendations by experts in qualitative methods. Our research team consisted of two PhD researchers and one physician with formal training and experience in qualitative methods, and two physicians with experience, but no formal training, in qualitative methods.</p><p>We first identified previously proposed recommendations by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google using combinations of terms such as &ldquo;qualitative methods,&rdquo; &ldquo;qualitative research,&rdquo; &ldquo;qualitative guidelines,&rdquo; &ldquo;qualitative standards,&rdquo; and &ldquo;critical appraisal&rdquo; and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources, reviewing the Equator Network,22&nbsp;and contacting experts. We conducted our first search in January 2007 and our last search in July 2013. Most recommendations were published in peer-reviewed journals, but some were available only on the Internet, and one was an interim draft from a national organization. We report the full set of the 40 sources reviewed in Supplemental Digital Appendix 1, found at&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218" onclick="javascript:window.open('https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218');return false">https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218</a>.</p><p>Two of us (B.O., I.H.) reviewed an initial sample of sources to generate a comprehensive list of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research (Draft A). All of us then worked in pairs to review all sources and code the presence or absence of each item in a given source. From Draft A, we then distilled a shorter list (Draft B) by identifying core concepts and combining related items, taking into account the number of times each item appeared in these sources. We then compared the items in Draft B with material in the original sources to check for missing concepts, modify accordingly, and add explanatory definitions to create a prefinal list of items (Draft C).</p><p>We circulated Draft C to five experienced qualitative researchers (see the acknowledgments) for review. We asked them to note any omitted or redundant items and to suggest improvements to the wording to enhance clarity and relevance across a broad spectrum of qualitative inquiry. In response to their reviews, we consolidated some items and made minor revisions to the wording of labels and definitions to create the final set of reporting standards&mdash;the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)&mdash;summarized in&nbsp;<a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick="javascript:showSlideShowByImageID('T1-21', '00001888-201409000-00021');">Table 1</a>.</p>