Optimizing qualitative methods in implementation research: a resource for editors, reviewers, authors, and researchers to dispel ten common misperceptions about qualitative research methods

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Qualitative methods are central to implementation research. Qualitative research provides rich contextual insight into lived experiences of health and illness, healthcare systems and care delivery, and complex implementation processes. However, quantitative methods have historically been favored by editors and reviewers who serve as gatekeepers to scientific knowledge. Thus, we underscore that editors and reviewers must be familiar with the underlying principles and strengths of qualitative methods to avoid perpetuating inappropriate evaluation criteria that hinder qualitative research dissemination and funding opportunities. We aim to help authors and researchers provide sufficient details to dispel misperceptions and editors and reviewers to better evaluate studies using qualitative methods to maximize dissemination for high-impact implementation research. METHODS: We convened a panel of six researchers with extensive experience in: designing, conducting, and reporting on qualitative research in implementation science and other healthcare research; training and mentoring others on qualitative methods; and serving as journal editors and manuscript/grant peer reviewers. We reviewed existing literature, published and unpublished reviewer critiques of qualitative grants and manuscripts, and discussed challenges facing qualitative methodologists when disseminating findings. Over the course of one year, we identified candidate topics, ranked each by priority, and used a consensus-based process to finalize the inventory and develop written guidance for handling each topic. RESULTS: We identified and dispelled 10 common misperceptions that limit the impact of qualitative methods in implementation research. Five misperceptions were associated with the application of inappropriate quantitative evaluation standards (subjectivity, sampling, generalizability, numbers/statistics, interrater reliability). Five misperceptions were associated with overly prescribed qualitative evaluation standards (saturation, member checking, coding, themes, qualitative data analysis software). For each misperception, we provide guidance on key considerations, responses to common critiques, and citations to appropriate literature. CONCLUSIONS: Unaddressed misperceptions can impede the contributions of qualitative methods in implementation research. We offer a resource for editors, reviewers, authors, and researchers to clarify misunderstandings and promote more nuanced and appropriate evaluation of qualitative methods in manuscripts and grant proposals. This article encourages a balanced assessment of the strengths of qualitative methods to enhance understandings of key problems in implementation research, and, ultimately, to strengthen the impact of qualitative findings.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Implementation Science, 2025 · DOI ↗