心理健康研究中的定性方法：伦理调查、研究实践和同行评审的标准@MedSci

Stage	Researchers: Key Considerations	Peer Reviewers: What to Assess	Page No./ü
1. Philosophical grounding	• Define ontological and epistemological stance (e.g., interpretivist, constructivist) • Use a “Big Q” qualitative framework • Avoid positivist drift	• Is the stance clearly stated and aligned with aims? • Does it avoid implicit positivism?
2. Research questions	• Frame exploratory, open-ended questions • Avoid hypotheses and binary framing • Focus on subjective experiences	• Are questions appropriate for qualitative research? • Do they capture the complexity of mental health?
3. Methodological design	• Justify method in light of epistemology • Choose aligned design (e.g., GT, phenomenology, ethnography) • Follow standards like COREQ	• Is design congruent with aims and philosophy? • Are strengths and limitations acknowledged?
4. Reflexivity	• Include positionality and reflexive journaling • Reflect on identity, power, emotion • Embed reflexivity across stages	• Is researcher influence transparently discussed? • Is reflexivity ongoing, not one-off?
5. Sampling strategy	• Use purposive /theoretical sampling • Justify sample size by depth, not generalizability • Avoid rigid saturation logic	• Is sampling rationale clearly explained? • Is depth emphasized over quantity?
6. Ethical considerations	• Apply trauma-informed, culturally responsive ethics • Secure informed consent • Prepare for distress in interviews	• Are ethics protocols contextually sensitive? • Are vulnerable populations addressed appropriately?
7. Data collection methods	• Select context-appropriate methods (e.g., photovoice, interviews) • Address ecological validity • Account for power in interactions	• Are chosen methods justified for population? • Are power dynamics acknowledged?
8. Transcription and translation	• Use verbatim transcription • Translate using forward-backward methods • Preserve emotional and cultural tone	• Are transcription and translation high quality? • Is meaning preserved beyond literal accuracy?
9. Data storage and security	• Encrypt and anonymize transcripts • Define retention timelines • Maintain audit trail	• Are storage practices ethically compliant? • Is confidentiality ensured?
10. Analytical approach	• Use robust methods (e.g., reflexive TA, coding cycles) • Employ abductive/iterative logic • Avoid forced saturation	• Is analysis grounded in data and paradigm? • Are themes developed, not imposed?
11. Use of tools	• Use software critically (e.g., NVivo, ATLAS.ti) • Provide coding trees and theme maps • Avoid mechanistic analysis	• Are tools used to support—not replace—interpretation? • Are visuals used meaningfully?
12. Translation of meaning	• Go beyond literal translation • Attend to idioms, tone, emotion • Acknowledge limits in cross-language meaning	• Is affective and cultural meaning preserved? • Are translation boundaries discussed?
13. Rigor and trustworthiness	• Use strategies like triangulation, audit trails • Provide thick description for transferability • Practice reflexivity and member-checking	• Are Guba and Lincoln’s criteria applied well? • Are validity claims nuanced?
14. Presentation of findings	• Use rich, contextualized narratives • Support claims with participant quotes • Link findings to theory without overgeneralizing	• Are voices preserved and theory integrated? • Is oversimplification avoided?
15. Dissemination and impact	• Plan ethical, inclusive dissemination (e.g., policy briefs, debriefs) • Consider Altmetric/PlumX impact tools • Target community and policy audiences	• Are dissemination plans inclusive and purposeful? • Is impact beyond academia considered?

心理健康研究中的定性方法：伦理调查、研究实践和同行评审的标准

Table 1.