Reporting Qualitative Research in Veterinary Science

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-11

Key Takeaways

• Reporting standards COREQ and SRQR are critical for transparent qualitative veterinary research. COREQ is specifically for interviews and focus groups, while SRQR offers a broader framework for diverse qualitative designs, ensuring methodological rigor comparable to quantitative studies.
• Reflexivity is a mandatory reporting component, detailing researcher positionality and its influence on data collection and interpretation. This includes disclosing disciplinary backgrounds, prior relationships with participants, and potential biases, as exemplified by a veterinarian disclosing their clinical role in a study of their own practice.
• Inconsistent reporting of qualitative methods in veterinary literature hinders evidence synthesis and quality appraisal. Systematic reviews reveal significant variation in adherence to standards like COREQ, impacting the ability to assess transferability and trustworthiness of findings on topics such as antimicrobial stewardship.
• The analytic trail, including coding frameworks, definitions, and examples of coded text, is essential for demonstrating systematic analysis. This documentation, akin to a statistical analysis plan, allows readers to verify that interpretations are data-supported and not impressionistic, particularly crucial for unexpected findings.
• Common reporting failures include retrospective checklist completion, conflating data saturation with sample size, and mislabelling qualitative components in mixed-methods studies. These issues can be mitigated by integrating reporting standards into study protocols and explicitly comparing manuscripts against field notes or original plans.
• Contextual details specific to the study population and setting are integral to transferability assessment. This includes reporting on farm production types, species mix in wildlife studies, or regulatory environments in laboratory animal research, as demonstrated by the detailed reporting of a rabies policy implementation study in Kenya.

Qualitative research in veterinary science addresses questions that quantitative designs cannot answer: how farmers perceive antimicrobial stewardship, why vaccine uptake lags in specific production systems, what barriers limit rabies surveillance, and how caregivers experience animal-assisted therapy. These questions matter clinically because behavior, trust, and communication shape treatment adherence, biosecurity, and disease control. This article explains how to report such studies transparently, with emphasis on the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) and the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). It serves veterinary researchers, graduate students, and reviewers who must judge whether a qualitative manuscript contains enough methodological detail to support its claims.

The central problem is that qualitative findings are only as credible as the reporting that surrounds them. A study that describes its sampling, data collection, analysis, and researcher positionality in sufficient detail allows readers to assess transferability to their own clinical or policy context. A study that omits these elements cannot be distinguished from one that is merely poorly written. Reporting standards exist to close that gap. They are not bureaucratic obstacles. They are the mechanism by which qualitative evidence enters the veterinary literature with the same scrutability expected of randomised trials or cohort studies.

At a Glance

Why Reporting Standards Matter in Veterinary Qualitative Research

Veterinary qualitative studies frequently investigate behavior and decision making among farmers, veterinarians, and animal owners. A systematic review of dairy farmers' and veterinarians' antimicrobial use behaviors assessed transparency of reporting using COREQ and found that the comprehensiveness of reporting varied across the retained studies. The review's authors used the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for quality appraisal, which indicates that reporting completeness and study quality are related but distinct judgments. A study can be methodologically sound yet poorly reported, and poor reporting prevents readers from verifying that soundness.

The same pattern appears in policy-oriented research. A study of rabies policy implementation in Kenya used qualitative system dynamics and group model building, combining expert interviews, field observations, and workshop discussions, and explicitly followed COREQ to document its methods. The authors' decision to cite COREQ in the methods section signals to reviewers which reporting expectations they held themselves to. That signal matters because qualitative methods are often described in bespoke language that obscures instead of clarifies.

The COREQ Framework

COREQ was developed to standardize reporting of interviews and focus groups in health research. It contains 32 items organized into three domains. The first domain, research team and reflexivity, covers the personal characteriztics of the researchers, their relationship with participants, and their assumptions about the topic. The second domain, study design, covers theoretical framework, participant selection, setting, data collection, and data processing. The third domain, analysis and findings, covers the analytic process, coding, derivation of themes, and presentation of findings.

The EQUATOR Network maintains the library of reporting guidelines that includes COREQ alongside CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, and REFLECT. Veterinary researchers should consult the EQUATOR Network when selecting a guideline for a specific study design, because the network indexes which guideline applies to which methodology.

Reflexivity as a Reporting Requirement

Reflexivity requires the researcher to state how their background, assumptions, and interactions with participants shaped the data and its interpretation. In veterinary research this might mean disclosing that the interviewer is a veterinarian, that the research team includes animal scientists with prior opinions on antimicrobial use, or that the funder has a stake in the findings. COREQ asks for this information explicitly. Omitting it is a common reason qualitative manuscripts fail peer review.

The SRQR Alternative

SRQR was developed as a general standard for qualitative research across methodologies, including ethnography, phenomenology, and content analysis. It contains 21 items and is organized to mirror the structure of a journal article, from title and abstract through methods, results, and discussion. A qualitative content analysis of animal-assisted therapy records in a palliative medicine center reported its methods according to SRQR, demonstrating that the standard accommodates document-based studies as well as interview-based ones.

Researchers should choose between COREQ and SRQR based on their design. COREQ suits studies built on interviews or focus groups. SRQR suits studies using other qualitative approaches, including analysis of existing records or observational data. Some journals specify a preference. When they do not, either standard is acceptable provided it is applied fully.

Reporting Completeness in the Veterinary Literature

Evidence from veterinary systematic reviews indicates that reporting completeness is inconsistent. The antimicrobial use review retained 35 studies from 349 identified articles and assessed each against COREQ. The authors reported that transparency of reporting varied, which limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the body of evidence. This finding is not unique to veterinary science. A review of reporting guideline policies among addiction medicine journals found that journal instructions to authors varied in whether they required, recommended, or omitted mention of reporting standards. Veterinary journals show similar variability.

The practical implication is that authors should not assume reviewers know the standards. The manuscript should state explicitly which reporting guideline was followed and where the completed checklist can be found. Many journals now request the checklist as a supplementary file at submission.

Choosing the Correct Standard

Qualitative studies in veterinary science may also involve quantitative components, such as descriptive statistics about participant demographics or the frequency of coded themes. That does not convert the study into a mixed-methods project requiring separate quantitative reporting guidelines. The qualitative arm should be reported against COREQ or SRQR. If the study is genuinely mixed methods, with a quantitative arm designed and analyzed as such, then the quantitative arm should follow the appropriate quantitative guideline, such as STROBE for observational designs or CONSORT for trials. The ARRIVE guidelines apply to in vivo animal research and are not relevant to qualitative studies of human participants, even when the topic concerns animals.

Mapping the Reporting Process to a Study Protocol

The reporting standards described in the preceding sections are not retrospective decorations. They function best when they shape the study from protocol development onward. A qualitative study in veterinary science should have a written protocol that specifies the research question, the sampling strategy, the data collection methods, and the planned analytic approach before fieldwork begins. The reporting checklist then serves as a quality control instrument at the manuscript stage, verifying that each protocol element has been described transparently in the final report.

The practical sequence is as follows. First, select the reporting standard that matches the study design. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) applies to interviews and focus groups, while the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) covers a broader range of qualitative designs including document analysis and observational work. Second, draft the manuscript with the checklist items as section headings or as a completed supplementary table. Third, audit the final manuscript against the checklist item by item, correcting omissions before submission.

A common failure mode is the manuscript that describes the analytic method in detail but omits the sampling logic. Readers cannot judge transferability without knowing how participants were selected, how many were approached, and why some declined. The COREQ framework explicitly requires this information, and systematic reviews of veterinary qualitative literature have used COREQ to assess transparency of reporting across studies of farmer and veterinarian behavior regarding antimicrobial use. The review by Farrell and colleagues applied COREQ to 35 retained studies and found that reporting completeness varied considerably, which limited the synthesis of findings across the literature. This demonstrates that incomplete reporting is not a cosmetic issue. It directly undermines the cumulative value of qualitative evidence in veterinary science.

Building the Reporting Checklist for a Veterinary Qualitative Study

The checklist below consolidates the core items from COREQ and SRQR into a practical instrument for veterinary researchers. It is organized by manuscript section so that it can be used during drafting instead of as a final audit only.

The checklist should be adapted to the study design. A qualitative content analysis of patient records, such as the animal-assisted therapy study by Schmitz and colleagues, does not involve participant recruitment or informed consent in the usual sense. The reporting items must be adjusted accordingly. The researchers followed SRQR for that study, which accommodates document-based designs more readily than COREQ. A descriptive phenomenological study using focus groups, by contrast, requires full reporting of the interview guide and the group composition, as demonstrated in the caregivers' perspectives study by Yurdadön and colleagues, which followed COREQ.

Worked Example: Reporting a Qualitative Study of Veterinarian Decision Making

Consider a hypothetical but realistic study: a qualitative investigation of how companion animal veterinarians decide whether to prescribe antimicrobials for canine pyoderma. The study uses semi-structured interviews with 18 veterinarians recruited purposively across three practice types, first opinion, referral, and emergency. Analysis follows reflexive thematic analysis with two coders.

The COREQ-compliant methods section would read as follows. The research team includes a veterinary dermatologist, a qualitative methodologist, and a final year veterinary student. The interviewer is the methodologist, who has no clinical relationship with the participants. Participants were recruited through professional networks and snowball sampling. Eighteen veterinarians were approached and 15 agreed to participate. Three declined citing time constraints. Interviews were conducted by video call, lasted 40 to 65 minutes, and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were taken during each interview. Transcripts were not returned to participants for member checking, a decision that should be stated explicitly with justification. Coding was performed independently by the methodologist and the student, with disagreements resolved through discussion with the dermatologist. Thematic saturation was assessed after 12 interviews, with three further interviews confirming no new themes.

The results section would present three to five themes, each with a descriptive label, a definition, and at least two illustrative quotations. The discussion would address transferability. Findings from first opinion veterinarians may not transfer to referral settings because case mix and client expectations differ. The discussion would also compare the findings with the quantitative literature on antimicrobial prescribing and with the qualitative synthesis by Farrell and colleagues, which identified conflicting findings across studies of farmer and veterinarian behavior regarding antimicrobial use and resistance.

This worked example illustrates the density of information required. Each sentence in the methods section answers a specific checklist item. No sentence is decorative.

Species and Setting Modifications

The correct reporting choices vary with the study population and the production system. Studies involving food animal producers require additional contextual reporting. The sampling strategy must account for herd size, production type, and regional variation. The interview guide must be piloted with the target population, and the pilot process should be reported. Studies in low and middle income settings may face additional constraints, including language barriers, literacy levels, and the need for local research assistants. These contextual factors belong in the methods section because they affect the credibility of the findings.

The rabies policy study by Smets and colleagues illustrates this point. The researchers combined expert interviews, field observations, and group model building workshops across multiple locations in Kenya. The COREQ framework was used to document the methods, but the reporting had to accommodate the systems thinking approach, which is not a standard qualitative design. The researchers reported the number of participants in each data collection activity, the locations, and the integration of the different data sources. This level of detail is essential for readers to assess the trustworthiness of the systems map that emerged from the analysis.

Species differences also matter. Studies involving wildlife veterinarians, shelter medicine practitioners, or laboratory animal veterinarians will have different sampling frames and different ethical considerations. The reporting standard does not change, but the contextual details do. A study of wildlife rehabilitation decision making must report the species mix, the caseload, and the legal framework governing wildlife care. A study of laboratory animal welfare must report the institutional oversight structure and the regulatory environment. These details are not optional context. They are integral to the transferability assessment.

Documenting the Analytic Trail

The analytic trail is the qualitative equivalent of a statistical analysis plan. It should be documented in the manuscript or in supplementary materials. The documentation should include the coding framework, the code definitions, and examples of coded text segments. If software was used, the specific program and version should be named. The MAXQDA software was used in the caregivers' perspectives study, and this level of specificity allows readers to understand the analytic workflow.

The analytic trail serves two purposes. It demonstrates that the analysis was systematic instead of impressionistic, and it allows other researchers to assess whether the interpretations are supported by the data. The trail is particularly important when the findings are unexpected or counterintuitive. A qualitative study that reports a surprising result without showing the coding pathway invites scepticism. A study that shows how the theme emerged from the data, with supporting quotations and negative case analysis, earns credibility.

The trail should also document the reflexive process. The researcher's position relative to the participants and the topic should be stated, and the potential influence of that position on the analysis should be discussed. This is not a confession of bias. It is a recognition that qualitative analysis is interpretive, and the reader deserves to know the interpreter's standpoint. The COREQ framework includes specific items on researcher characteriztics and their influence on the research relationship, and these items should be answered directly instead of evaded.

Recognized Complications and Failure Modes

Qualitative reporting in veterinary science fails in predictable patterns. The most common complication is the retrospective completion of reporting checklists, where authors reconstruct methodological decisions after data collection has ended. This produces reports that describe what should have happened instead of what actually occurred. Early detection requires comparing the submitted manuscript against the original study protocol, if one exists, or against contemporaneous field notes and audit trails.

A second failure mode is the conflation of data saturation with sample size justification. Saturation is a property of the analytic process, not a number of interviews or focus groups. Reports that state saturation was achieved without describing how saturation was assessed, who made the judgment, and at what point in the analysis it was reached should be treated with caution. The discriminating check is whether the authors describe negative case analysis or member checking as part of the saturation determination.

A third complication is the mislabelling of qualitative components within mixed-methods studies. Veterinary researchers often describe a brief open-ended survey question as a qualitative strand, then apply COREQ criteria inappropriately. The converse also occurs, where a substantive qualitative study is reported with only a paragraph of method, leaving readers unable to assess trustworthiness. Detection involves checking whether the reported analytic approach matches the depth of data collected.

The table below summarizes these failure modes and their discriminating checks.

Common Errors and Corrective Actions

Less experienced veterinary researchers frequently confuse description with interpretation. Reporting what participants said is not the same as analyzing what their statements mean in context. The corrective action is to require that each theme includes both supporting quotations and an interpretive commentary that links the quotation to the research question and to existing veterinary literature.

A second common error is the use of purposive sampling described as random sampling, or vice versa. Qualitative research in veterinary settings typically uses purposive, convenience, or snowball sampling, each with distinct implications for transferability. The corrective action is to state the sampling strategy explicitly and to justify its selection in relation to the research question. The systematic review of dairy farmer and veterinarian antimicrobial use behavior noted that transparency of reporting varied considerably across studies, which limited the ability to synthesise findings across contexts Understanding farmers' and veterinarians' behavior in relation to antimicrobial use and resistance in dairy cattle: A systematic review.

A third error is the omission of the setting description. Veterinary qualitative studies occur in farms, clinics, laboratories, and policy environments, and the setting materially shapes the data. Corrective action is to describe the physical, social, and temporal features of the setting, including how access was negotiated and whether participants were observed in their usual environment.

Limitations of Current Evidence

The evidence base for qualitative reporting in veterinary science remains thinner than in human health research. Most reporting standards, including COREQ and SRQR, were developed for human healthcare contexts and have been adopted in veterinary research without formal adaptation. The systematic review of dairy farmer and veterinarian behavior identified that COREQ was used to assess reporting transparency, but the review also noted that the comprehensiveness of reporting varied widely, with some studies providing insufficient detail to judge methodological quality Understanding farmers' and veterinarians' behavior in relation to antimicrobial use and resistance in dairy cattle: A systematic review. Studies in adjacent fields, such as the qualitative examination of rabies policy implementation in Kenya, have demonstrated that COREQ can be applied to veterinary and public health policy research, but the transferability of the standard to farm animal and wildlife settings remains under-examined Towards "Zero by 30", the Kenyan case: a systematic exploration of barriers to rabies policy implementation through systems thinking.

Expert opinion still differs on whether veterinary qualitative studies should require the same reporting rigour as clinical trials. Some veterinary journals do not mandate reporting guidelines for qualitative work, and the EQUATOR Network library, while comprehensive for health research, has limited veterinary-specific guidance EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines. The ARRIVE guidelines address animal research reporting but focus on quantitative in vivo experiments instead of qualitative inquiry ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 for reporting animal research. This gap means veterinary qualitative researchers must exercise judgment in selecting and adapting existing standards.

Referral, Consultation, and Regulatory Reporting

Most qualitative veterinary studies do not trigger regulatory reporting requirements. However, studies involving client interviews, farm visits, or practitioner observation may raise confidentiality and data protection obligations that vary by jurisdiction. Researchers should consult institutional ethics boards or research governance offices before commencing data collection, particularly when the study involves vulnerable participants, such as farmers under financial stress or veterinary students in training.

Specialist consultation is warranted when the study design involves sensitive topics, such as antimicrobial use practices, euthanasia decisions, or professional error. The WOAH terrestrial animal health standards provide context for studies that intersect with disease surveillance and trade-related reporting obligations WOAH terrestrial animal health standards. Where a qualitative study reveals reportable disease suspicions, animal welfare concerns, or professional misconduct, the researcher must follow local statutory obligations, which may supersede research confidentiality agreements. The MSD Veterinary Manual provides species-specific context for clinical decision making that may inform the interpretation of qualitative findings in practice settings MSD Veterinary Manual professional edition.

Referral to a qualitative methods consultant is appropriate when the research team lacks formal training in qualitative analysis, when coding disagreements cannot be resolved, or when the analytic approach requires specialised software. Veterinary clinicians without qualitative training should not attempt to report thematic analysis without methodological support, as the risk of producing superficial or misleading findings is substantial.

Frequently Asked Questions

How Do I Report Qualitative Research When My Study Also Includes Quantitative Components?

Use the reporting standard that matches the primary research question. If the qualitative component is central, apply COREQ or SRQR to that component and report the quantitative arm with its own standard, such as STROBE. The EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines library lists standards for each study type and helps you select the appropriate combination. In mixed methods work, state explicitly how the components integrate and report each arm with sufficient transparency that a reader could assess either component independently. Journals increasingly expect this dual reporting, and reviewers will check both checklists.

What Should I Do When a Journal Does Not Require Qualitative Reporting Standards?

Submit a completed checklist as supplementary material regardless of journal policy. Many editors will accept this voluntarily, and it strengthens your manuscript during peer review. The EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines provide downloadable checklists you can attach. If the journal has no mechanism for supplementary files, include a statement in the methods section confirming that the study followed COREQ or SRQR and note that the full checklist is available on request. This practice protects you if a reviewer questions methodological transparency and aligns with the expectations demonstrated in systematic reviews that assess reporting completeness using COREQ.

How Do I Report Reflexivity When I Am a Clinician Studying My Own Practice?

Disclose your dual role explicitly in the reflexivity statement. Describe how your clinical position shaped the research question, participant recruitment, and data interpretation. State whether participants knew you as a clinician and how that may have influenced their responses. Document your assumptions before data collection and note any shifts in perspective during analysis. The COREQ framework requires reporting personal characteriztics and their potential influence on the research. If you used a peer debriefer or auditor, name that person's role and qualifications. Acknowledge that complete objectivity is impossible and explain the strategies you used to limit bias.

How Do I Report Qualitative Findings in a Way That Supports Evidence Synthesis?

Report sufficient contextual detail for reviewers to judge transferability. Describe the setting, participant characteriztics, sampling strategy, and data collection methods with enough specificity that another researcher could replicate the study. Use participant quotations with identifiers that indicate the range of respondents, also the most vivid examples. The systematic review of farmers' and veterinarians' antimicrobial use behavior demonstrates how incomplete reporting hampers synthesis across studies. Report negative cases and divergent themes explicitly, as these are often lost in synthesis when authors present only convergent findings.

What Are the Minimum Reporting Requirements for a Short Report or Conference Abstract?

A short report should include the qualitative approach, sampling method, data collection technique, number of participants, and the main analytic strategy. Name the reporting standard used, even if you cannot include the full checklist. For conference abstracts, state the study design and confirm that full reporting will follow COREQ or SRQR in the subsequent manuscript. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research used in the animal-assisted therapy study at a palliative medicine center show that even modest studies can document methods transparently. If space is severely limited, prioritize the analytic approach and researcher positionality over detailed results.

How Do I Explain Reporting Standards to a Supervisor or Collaborator Who Sees Them as Bureaucratic?

Frame reporting standards as tools for scientific rigour, not administrative burden. Explain that COREQ and SRQR function like surgical checklists: they prevent omission of critical steps under pressure. The COREQ framework used in the Kenyan rabies policy study enabled the authors to document complex systems methods clearly, which strengthened the credibility of their findings. Offer to complete the checklist during study design instead of after data collection, which reduces retrospective work and improves the study itself. Show how the checklist prompts decisions about sampling, saturation, and analysis that you might otherwise defer until writing.

Related Clinical & Scientific Guides

• Conducting Systematic Reviews of Veterinary Diagnostic Test Accuracy
• Bias in Veterinary Research: Types, Sources, and Mitigation
• Cluster Randomized Trials in Veterinary Research: Design and Analysis

References and Further Reading

• Understanding farmers' and veterinarians' behavior in relation to antimicrobial use and resistance in dairy cattle: A systematic review.. 2021.
• Towards "Zero by 30", the Kenyan case: a systematic exploration of barriers to rabies policy implementation through systems thinking.. 2025.
• Vaping in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.. 2021.
• An Evaluation of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registry Requirements Among Addiction Medicine Journals.. 2020.
• Animal-assisted therapy at a University Center for Palliative Medicine - a qualitative content analysis of patient records.. 2017.
• The Effects of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Adolescent and Young Adults With Intellectual Disabilities: A Qualitative Study Based on Caregivers' Perspectives.. 2025.
• ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0 for Reporting Animal Research. PLOS Biology, 2020.
• EQUATOR Network Reporting Guidelines. EQUATOR Network.
• MSD Veterinary Manual, Professional Edition. MSD Veterinary Manual.

Related Articles

• Conducting Qualitative Research in Veterinary Settings
• Reporting Guidelines for Veterinary Research: CONSORT, STROBE, and Beyond
• Cohort Studies in Veterinary Research: Design and Interpretation
• Using Mixed Methods in Veterinary Research
• How to Write a Research Protocol for Veterinary Studies

This article is educational professional reference material for veterinary audiences. It is not a substitute for veterinary diagnosis, individual clinical judgment, current product labeling, or applicable regulatory requirements.