Qualitative research addresses ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions in healthcare. It captures the complexity of clinical practice by providing insights into experiences, behaviours and context often missed by quantitative methods. The objective of this review was to explore the volume, trends and adherence to reporting standards in qualitative research across hospital-based medical subspecialties.

Longitudinal bibliometric review.

Ovid Medline, Embase and Emcare were searched for qualitative research published between 2000 and 2024 in 12 medical subspecialties. For each subspecialty, the number and percentage of qualitative publications was identified. Adherence to reporting standards was assessed in a random sample of publications covering all subspecialties.

Between 2000 and 2024, 715 471 qualitative research studies were published across 12 medical subspecialties, representing 1.36% of all studies (52 620 042). Neurology and oncology had the highest number of qualitative studies (116 835 and 106 360). Although infectious diseases contributed a lower absolute number of qualitative studies (59 947), they had the highest proportion relative to all studies (4.07%). Conversely, nephrology and haematology exhibited the lowest number of qualitative studies (14 510 and 29 198) and smallest proportions (0.90% and 0.81%). Overall, the annual proportion of qualitative research increased from 0.64% (6052/945 008) in 2000 to 1.95% (56 909/2 919 825) in 2024. However, the relative positions remained largely stable over time.

Adherence to reporting standards was generally good, particularly in relation to methodological coherence. However, there was under-reporting of positionality (where researchers consider how their identity and standpoint may influence the research process) and reflexivity (where researchers critically reflect on how their assumptions and decisions shape the study).

Qualitative research is under-represented in medical subspecialties but has increased steadily over time, with notable variation in adoption between subspecialties. While overall adherence to reporting standards is good, greater attention to positionality and reflexivity is needed to enhance transparency and rigour.

Researchers are increasingly using workshops within health research, particularly in the context of developing complex interventions. The status of workshops within health research is not clear. Are workshops a research method or a form of stakeholder involvement akin to patient and public involvement? Do they require ethics approval? How are data collected and analysed? How should the results be published – if at all?

Reflection on the methodological literature.

Researchers can frame workshops as a qualitative research method if they aim to generate new knowledge that is useful to stakeholders external to their research project and therefore aim to publish the findings of the workshops. In that context, ethics approval is required, with written informed consent taken from participants. Data collection can occur using a range of approaches including post-it notes, handwritten notes or audio or video recordings of discussions. Data can be analysed using a range of approaches including thematic or content analysis. Like any qualitative research, results can be published in a research article. A list of issues to consider and report when undertaking workshops as a research method is offered, based on methodological literature from a range of research fields. Alternatively, researchers can frame workshops as ‘stakeholder involvement in research’ if they aim to identify knowledge for use within their research project only. The product of these workshops might be characterised as a set of actions for the research team to take. Formal analysis will not be necessary—merely identification of actions—and reporting within publications may be similar to the reporting of patient and public involvement activity with a research project. Researchers may face grey areas when deciding which route to adopt. Team reflection and documenting the justification for the decision made may help to formulate appropriate decisions.

Patients receiving haemodialysis are at very high risk of fragility fracture, yet there are no proven treatments for fracture prevention. We will advance a pilot study on the feasibility of a large, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of denosumab for fragility fracture prevention in haemodialysis.

PRevEnting FracturEs in REnal Disease-1 is a pragmatic, open-label, pilot study of an RCT of a denosumab care pathway embedded in routine care haemodialysis centres.

We will recruit at least 60 participants at high risk of fracture from at least 6 haemodialysis centres in Ontario, Canada. They must be aged 40 years or older, have access to provincial drug coverage, have appropriate baseline calcium and parathyroid hormone levels and be deemed suitable for denosumab by their kidney care provider. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to denosumab (with supports to mitigate hypocalcaemia) versus usual care using block randomisation by a central statistician (computer-generated sequence). Primary outcomes include recruitment feasibility and adherence. Secondary outcomes include safety (hypocalcaemia) and participant satisfaction with our protocol and processes. Study investigators and data analysts will be blind to treatment allocation.

We will present results descriptively. The trial was approved by Clinical Trials Ontario and local research ethics boards across study sites.

Primary and secondary outcomes will be published on trial completion.

This pilot will inform the feasibility of conducting a large-scale, efficiently run, pragmatic RCT to test whether a denosumab care pathway safely reduces the risk of fragility fracture in patients receiving haemodialysis. Results have the potential to transform fracture care in real-world patients with kidney and metabolic bone disease.

NCT05096195.

The management of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) involves a varied and comprehensive range of support services at various stages of an autistic individual’s life. In Thailand, parents/legal guardians of children with ASD often encounter challenges such as difficulty travelling from rural areas to access support services. The aim of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of a computer-based intervention programme for caregivers of children with ASD called the Thai Early Intervention for Autism—Assistive Technology for Caregivers (TEI4A-ATC), designed and implemented by a multidisciplinary team.

160 children and their caregivers are being recruited. They will be randomised 1:1 into two treatment arms: access to TEI4A-ATC for the intervention group and standard care for the control group. Before enrolment, ASD diagnosis will be conducted using the Thai Diagnostic Autism Scale: children’s ASD scores will be determined using the Thai Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist for evaluating communication, sociability and sensory/cognitive awareness and the Thai Early Developmental Assessment for Intervention for evaluating motor skills, social interaction, language development and problem-solving. Both assessment tools will be used again after 3 months of treatment. Similarly, the caregivers’ knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) for ASD care will be assessed using a questionnaire at enrolment and again after treatment. Comparison of the children’s ASD scores and caregivers’ KAP responses between the treatment groups and before and after treatment will be performed based on the intention-to-treat principle.

This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee for Mental Health and Psychiatry, Department of Mental Health, Ministry of Public Health (DMH.IRB.COA 037/2565). Written informed consent will be obtained from the participants prior to enrolment. The study’s findings may be disseminated through scientific publications and conference presentations. The results of the study will be shared with key stakeholders, including caregivers, psychiatrists, policymakers and the general public, via appropriate dissemination channels to aid in creating appropriate practice and policy guidelines.

This study was registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20240320010) on 20 March 2024.