# Qualitative Research Report Template: How to Choose

A qualitative research report template is a pre-structured outline that tells you which sections your write-up needs, while the reporting checklist you attach to it tells reviewers whether you disclosed everything that matters. The rule of thumb for choosing is simple: pick the template that matches your analysis method first, then adjust it to the reporting standard your target journal demands, and never the other way around. Writers who grab the best qualitative research report template they find online and then force their data into it usually produce a paper that looks tidy but hides the analytical decisions reviewers care about most.

This guide walks through the main qualitative research report template options, compares them side by side, works through realistic scenarios, and flags the mix-ups that cost students and early-career researchers the most time.

## What a Qualitative Research Report Template Actually Does

A research template in this context is a scaffold with three jobs. It fixes the order of your sections so a reader can find the research question, the methods, the findings, and the discussion without hunting. It forces disclosure of decisions that qualitative reviewers scrutinize, such as how many researchers coded the data, how disagreements were resolved, and whether the researcher's own position was examined (a practice called reflexivity). It also gives you a place to state your analytical method by name, because "we analyzed themes" without naming the method is one of the most common reasons qualitative manuscripts get rejected.

Templates do not replace judgment. A recent multi-stakeholder hospital study used the SRQR checklist as its overall reporting frame and supplemented it with COREQ for interview-specific details, and the authors still had to develop their own four interdependent functions from the data [1]. The template organized the transparency. The thinking stayed theirs.

## The Main Qualitative Research Report Template Options

### Option 1: The Checklist-Anchored Journal Template

This is the default choice for health and social science journals. The body follows a standard structure (introduction, methods, findings, discussion), and each section maps onto the items of a formal reporting checklist. The two names you will encounter constantly are COREQ, the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research, a 32-item checklist for interview and focus group studies, and SRQR, the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, a 21-item checklist covering a broader range of qualitative designs.

The pattern in recent literature is consistent. A two-centre study of a medical mentorship program in India stated that reporting followed COREQ guidelines and described its parallel focus groups and in-depth interviews in a structure that made the site-level comparison auditable [2]. A Portuguese study of nurse managers used Bardin's inductive content analysis and explicitly reported that the work was guided by COREQ [3]. A study of nurses in child and adolescent psychiatry stated that the research was conducted and reported in accordance with the COREQ checklist [4].

**Pros.** Editors and reviewers in health journals recognize these checklists immediately, so the template reduces friction at submission. The checklists function as a pre-submission audit that catches missing details, such as participant recruitment method or data saturation discussion, before a reviewer does.

**Cons.** Checklists can encourage box-ticking. A manuscript can satisfy all 32 COREQ items and still present thin analysis. The checklist confirms disclosure, not depth. If your study uses a design the checklist does not fit well, such as a document-based analysis or a co-design process, forcing it into interview-oriented items produces awkward or misleading disclosures.

### Option 2: The Method-Specific Thematic Analysis Template

Reflexive thematic analysis, the approach developed by Braun and Clarke, is the most widely used [qualitative analysis](/blog/guides/qualitative-data-analysis-coding-theming-and-interpretation) method in health research, and it comes with its own reporting logic. The template emphasizes a participant characteristics table, a clear statement of whether coding was inductive (themes built from the data) or deductive (themes guided by a pre-existing framework), a theme-by-theme findings section where each theme is argued with extracts, and a reflexivity statement.

Recent examples show the range within this one template family. A UK study of menopausal symptom discussion used reflexive thematic analysis with psychological safety as the organizing concept, and its findings section presented four themes that cut across home, healthcare, and work settings [5]. A study of physicians with disabilities used inductive iterative coding and thematic analysis, with a named theoretical model, Kafer's political-relational model of disability, informing the interpretation [6]. A grounded two-cycle coding approach appeared in a study of Black women under community supervision, where the coding structure and the Minority Stress Theory framing both shaped the report [7].

**Pros.** This template matches what most qualitative reviewers expect to see, and it scales from a 12-participant interview study to much larger samples. The theme-plus-extract structure makes your evidence visible.

**Cons.** It tempts writers to present themes as if they emerged magically from data. If you skip the analytic trail (how codes became themes, who decided), the report reads as assertion. It also handles few analytic traditions well. Framework analysis, for example, is matrix-based and needs a different findings structure, as a study that deliberately split its focus group data (inductive thematic analysis) from its in-depth interview data (framework analysis) demonstrates [2].

### Option 3: The Framework and Matrix Template

Some qualitative analyses are organized around matrices, where rows are cases or groups and columns are themes or codes. Framework analysis, content analysis with structured categories, and prioritization exercises all fit this pattern. The report template for these studies includes the matrix logic itself, often as a summary table, alongside the narrative themes.

A Diabetes UK collaboration with the University of East London analyzed focus group data thematically using NVivo 12 alongside a prioritization matrix, and the report had to present priorities that varied by age group, which the matrix structure supported directly [8]. A Thai capacity-development evaluation merged quantitative competency scores with qualitative participant accounts in a convergent design, and the report separated outcome and process strands explicitly [9]. A Portuguese content analysis identified 62 resource-related meaning units organized into two thematic domains, a structure that only makes sense if the counting and categorization system is reported clearly [3].

**Pros.** The matrix template makes comparison across groups or sites legible, which is essential when your research question involves differences between populations, age bands, or sites.

**Cons.** Matrices compress interpretation. A reader can see the cells but miss the texture behind them, so the narrative sections must carry the interpretive weight. The template also tends to look more "quantitative" than some qualitative purists like.

### Option 4: The Qualitative Descriptive Template

Qualitative description is the leanest option. The report stays close to participants' own accounts, uses plain thematic summary rather than heavy theory, and is common in intervention evaluations and health services research. A study of community nurses' clinical decision-making was explicitly framed as a qualitative descriptive study using simulated cases and debriefing interviews, and reported six themes in direct language [10]. A study of Palestinian mothers' experiences of telehealth coaching used a qualitative descriptive design embedded within a larger pilot trial, with the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability providing deductive sensitizing concepts while coding stayed open to new meanings [11].

**Pros.** Fast to write, easy for mixed audiences to read, and the natural choice when [qualitative data](/blog/guides/qualitative-data-analysis-a-practical-guide-for-life-scientists) are one component of a larger evaluation.

**Cons.** Reviewers in theory-oriented journals may judge descriptive work as underdeveloped. The template offers little guidance on reflexivity, which some journals require.

### Option 5: The Theory-Led Template

When a study tests or applies a named framework, the template must give the theory a structural role, usually as a section in the introduction that generates the sensitizing concepts, and a discussion section that returns to the theory. A Huntington's disease partner study analyzed data using thematic analysis informed by the needs-based model of quality of life, and the report organized findings around what that model predicts [12]. The telehealth coaching study used acceptability theory as its deductive frame [11]. The IPV study used Minority Stress Theory to structure interpretation of intersecting identities [7].

**Pros.** Theory-led templates produce reports that contribute to conceptual debates, not just to local description, which matters for higher-tier journals.

**Cons.** The template can force data into theoretical boxes. The telehealth study handled this risk explicitly by keeping coding open even while using a deductive frame [11], and your report should state that same discipline.

### Option 6: The Multi-Site and Comparative Template

Studies run at more than one site, or across contrasting cases, need a template with an explicit comparison architecture: site-level analysis first, then cross-site integration. The Indian mentorship study ran a two-centre parallel qualitative design, analyzed each site independently, and integrated through cross-site thematic comparison, reporting which of nine domains converged [2]. A Chinese diagnostic stewardship study compared two purposefully selected tertiary hospitals, used role- and site-comparison matrices, and applied discrepant-case analysis [1]. A co-design dashboard study applied two analytic strands to the same workshop data, pairing a consensus process with a critical realist mechanism analysis [13].

**Pros.** This structure earns claims about context, because differences between sites become findings rather than noise.

**Cons.** It doubles reporting burden. Without disciplined per-site sections, the write-up collapses into a blended narrative where readers cannot tell which site produced which observation.

### Option 7: The Mixed-Methods Integration Template

When qualitative work sits inside a mixed-methods study, the report template must include a dedicated integration section explaining how the strands relate. The Thai public health study used a convergent parallel mixed-methods design and was transparent that the quantitative strand reached Kirkpatrick level 2 (self-reported learning) while the qualitative strand added level 1 (reaction), with neither reaching behavior or results levels, and framed the whole evaluation as feasibility evidence [9]. The Palestinian telehealth study described its qualitative descriptive component as embedded within an explanatory sequential pilot trial [11].

**Pros.** The template prevents the most criticized failure in mixed-methods papers, which is presenting two disconnected studies under one title.

**Cons.** You must report the limitations of each strand honestly, including design-level limits like the absence of a comparison group [9]. Writers sometimes soften this and lose credibility.

### Option 8: The Synthesis and Meta-Synthesis Template

A qualitative evidence synthesis collects published qualitative studies and integrates them. Its template is borrowed from systematic review methodology: search strategy, quality appraisal, synthesis method, and confidence rating. A review of weight change experiences among people living with HIV searched eleven databases, appraised studies with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research, synthesized findings using JBI meta-aggregation, and graded confidence using CERQual, moving from 57 extracted findings through 12 categories to three synthesized findings [14].

**Pros.** The structure produces findings with graded confidence, which policy audiences trust.

**Cons.** It is the most demanding template on this list. You cannot shortcut the appraisal or the CERQual reasoning, and the report must show the extraction-to-category-to-finding pathway explicitly.

### Option 9: The Generic Research Template and the Lab Notebook Template PDF

Two document types sit upstream of the report and are worth separating from it. A generic research template is a proposal-stage outline covering question, rationale, sampling plan, and analysis intention. It is useful for supervision meetings and ethics applications, but it is not a report template and should not be confused with one.

A [lab notebook](/knowledge/molecular-biology/lab-notebook) template PDF is a fieldwork-era document. In qualitative projects its analog is the interview log, memo file, and reflexive journal where you record decisions as they happen. Those records feed directly into the reflexivity and audit-trail sections that SRQR and COREQ demand. A study that integrated reflexivity throughout data collection and analysis to support credibility [15] is reporting the downstream value of disciplined contemporaneous notes. Downloading a lab notebook template PDF will not write your report, but keeping one during fieldwork makes the eventual template sections far easier to fill, because you will already possess dated records of analytic decisions.

## Side-by-Side Comparison of Qualitative Research Report Template Options

| Template option | Best for | Core sections beyond the basics | Pros | Cons |
|--|--|--|--|--|
| Checklist-anchored (COREQ, SRQR) | Interview and focus group studies for health journals | Checklist mapping table, reflexivity statement, recruitment detail | Recognized by editors, audit-ready [2],[1],[3] | Encourages box-ticking, poor fit for non-interview designs |
| Reflexive thematic analysis | Single-method interview or focus group studies | Participant table, inductive/deductive statement, theme-plus-extract findings | Matches reviewer expectations, flexible [5],[6] | Weak on analytic-trail reporting if discipline slips |
| Framework and matrix | Group or case comparisons, prioritization studies | Matrix summary, coding framework table | Makes cross-group comparison legible [8],[2] | Compresses interpretation, reads as quasi-quantitative |
| Qualitative descriptive | Evaluations, embedded components, practitioner audiences | Close-to-data summary, brief theory if used | Fast, readable, evaluation-friendly [10],[11] | Thin on reflexivity, limited theory contribution |
| Theory-led | Concept-driven studies targeting higher-tier journals | Theoretical framing, theory-return discussion | Builds conceptual contribution [12],[7],[6] | Risks forcing data into boxes |
| Multi-site comparative | Parallel designs, contrasting cases | Per-site findings, cross-site integration section | Earns context-sensitive claims [2],[13],[1] | Doubles reporting burden |
| Mixed-methods integration | Evaluations combining strands | Integration section, strand-specific limitations | Prevents disconnected strands [9],[11] | Must report each strand's limits honestly |
| Synthesis and meta-synthesis | Reviews of published qualitative studies | Search strategy, appraisal, CERQual confidence | Produces graded, policy-usable findings [14] | Most labor-intensive option |
| Generic research template | Proposals, supervision, ethics | Question, sampling, analysis plan | Cheap planning tool | Not a report format, do not submit it as one |
| Lab notebook template PDF | Fieldwork documentation, memos, audit trail | Dated entries, decision log | Feeds reflexivity sections later | Pre-writing document, not a report |

## How to Choose: The Criteria That Decide Real Choices

![Decision path asking about analysis method, number of sites and strands, leading to a recommended template option.](/article-images/illustrations/qualitative-research-report-template-template-choice.webp)

**Match the analysis method first.** Your template follows your method, not your preference. If you analyzed reflexively with themes [5], the thematic template fits. If you built a matrix of meaning units [3] or a prioritization matrix [8], the framework template fits. If you are synthesizing others' studies, only the meta-synthesis template applies [14].

**Match the journal's reporting standard second.** Health journals overwhelmingly expect COREQ or SRQR disclosure. The practical move is to adopt a method-appropriate structure and then map it onto the checklist, exactly as the Chinese governance study layered COREQ onto SRQR [1]. Read your target journal's author guidelines before drafting, not after.

**Match your audience third.** Clinician readers favor descriptive clarity [10],[15]. Theory-oriented readers expect an explicit framing section. Policy readers expect confidence ratings.

**Match the study architecture.** Ask whether your study has one strand or several, one site or many, one data type or several. The two-centre mentorship study needed site-separated sections [2]. The Thai evaluation needed strand-separated sections with an integration bridge [9]. A single-site interview study with one data type needs neither, and adding them wastes word count.

**Match your team's disclosure obligations.** If multiple coders worked on the data, the template must include a coding-reliability or consensus procedure. If AI tools assisted analysis, the template must state that, because a study comparing human and generative AI-assisted thematic analysis was careful to frame the comparison as exploratory rather than a test of agreement [10]. Silence on either point invites rejection.

## Worked Scenarios

**Scenario 1: A nursing dissertation with 15 semi-structured interviews.** You plan reflexive thematic analysis and will submit to a nursing journal. Use the thematic analysis template, add a participant characteristics table, state that coding was inductive, and map the finished manuscript onto COREQ, mirroring the reporting choice of the child and adolescent psychiatry study [4]. Keep a dated reflexive journal from the first interview. That journal becomes your audit trail and reflexivity section.

**Scenario 2: A mixed-methods evaluation of a training program.** You have pretest-posttest competency scores and participant interviews. The convergent parallel template applies, with separate strand sections, an explicit integration paragraph, and honest statements about what each strand can and cannot support, following the Thai example that framed its evidence as preliminary feasibility rather than effectiveness [9]. Resist the temptation to let qualitative quotes decorate the quantitative results. Report each strand on its own terms, then integrate.

**Scenario 3: A two-hospital comparison.** Your research question asks how two institutions differ. The multi-site template applies. Analyze each site independently, build role- and site-comparison matrices, then write a cross-site integration section that names convergent and divergent domains, as the Indian mentorship study did with its nine thematic domains across two sites [2]. If you also hold realist commitments about how context shapes mechanisms, add the critical realist framing used in the diagnostic stewardship and dashboard studies [13],[1].

**Scenario 4: A focus group study with children and young people.** Your participants span multiple age bands and your question concerns how priorities differ between them. Use the framework and matrix template with software-supported coding, as the type 1 diabetes priorities study did with NVivo 12 and a prioritization matrix [8]. Report the age-band structure in both sampling and findings, because the differentiation itself is your result.

**Scenario 5: A coursework project where you also want good fieldwork habits.** Download a lab notebook template PDF for your interview logs and memos, use a generic research template for your proposal, and switch to a thematic analysis or COREQ-anchored template only when you begin writing. The three documents serve different stages, and students who try to make one document do all three jobs usually end up with a proposal that reads like a report or a report with no audit trail.

## Common Mix-Ups

![Comparison table separating what COREQ, an analysis method and NVivo each do in a qualitative report.](/article-images/illustrations/qualitative-research-report-template-checklist-vs-method.webp)

**Confusing the checklist with the method.** COREQ is a disclosure checklist, not an analysis method. A study can follow COREQ perfectly while using any of several analytic traditions, which is why the Portuguese content analysis study and the Indian thematic and framework analysis study both cited the same checklist while analyzing data differently [2],[3].

**Confusing a research template with a report template.** The proposal-stage outline and the final report structure share section names but differ in tense, content, and purpose. Writing your findings section into your proposal template produces a muddle.

**Confusing software with analysis.** NVivo 12 and ATLAS.ti organize and retrieve data, but the analytic act remains yours [8],[3]. A report that credits the software with theme development misdescribes the work.

**Confusing quotes with evidence.** Illustrative extracts support themes, they do not constitute them. The community nursing study compared human-selected and AI-selected quotations against the themes both analyses produced, which is the right relationship, quotes subordinate to themes [10].

**Confusing sample size with adequacy.** Published qualitative studies in this literature ranged from 12 interviewees [5] to 96 participants across sites [2]. There is no universal number. Your template should prompt you to justify your sample through your sampling strategy, such as the purposive and snowball sampling described in the menopause study [5], rather than through a headcount alone.

## Common Mistakes and Limitations

The most damaging mistake is choosing a template before finalizing your analysis method. Writers who do this discover, usually during revision, that their findings section contradicts their stated method. Decide the method, then the template, then the checklist.

The second mistake is treating a completed checklist as proof of quality. COREQ and SRQR confirm that you disclosed your procedures. They do not confirm that your themes are defensible, that your sample was appropriate, or that your reflexivity was genuine. Reviewers read past the checklist.

The third mistake is overclaiming. Qualitative findings explain mechanisms and meanings in the settings studied. They do not establish prevalence or causation, and mixed-methods authors who reach only preliminary levels of evidence should say so, as the Thai evaluation did at Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2 [9]. Overclaiming from a template that was never designed for causal inference is a fast route to rejection.

The fourth mistake is template rigidity. Real studies hybridize. A single project may split analyses by data type [2], layer two checklists, or embed a descriptive strand inside a trial [11]. Treat the template as a starting architecture and document every deviation in your methods section.

A final limitation applies to every template on this list. A template structures transparency, but the credibility of a qualitative report depends on decisions only you and your supervisory team can make about your data, your participants, and your analytic integrity. Seek methodological supervision early, before drafting, when course corrections are still cheap.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What is the best qualitative research report template for a first study?

For a first interview-based or focus-group-based study aimed at a health journal, the checklist-anchored template built around reflexive thematic analysis and mapped onto COREQ is the strongest starting point, because journals recognize it and it prompts the disclosures reviewers request most often [2],[4]. If your study is descriptive and embedded in an evaluation, the qualitative descriptive template is lighter and equally acceptable [10],[11].

### What is the difference between COREQ and SRQR?

COREQ is a 32-item checklist specific to interviews and focus groups, while SRQR is a 21-item checklist covering a broader range of qualitative designs. Some teams use both, with SRQR framing the whole report and COREQ adding interview-specific disclosure [1]. Check your target journal, because many name one or the other in their author guidelines,.

### Can one template cover a mixed-methods study?

Yes, but only if the template contains a dedicated integration section that explains how the qualitative and quantitative strands relate, plus strand-specific limitations. The convergent parallel design in the Thai evaluation and the embedded descriptive design in the telehealth pilot both required this architecture [9],[11].

### Is a lab notebook template PDF a substitute for a report template?

No. A lab notebook template PDF documents fieldwork events, memos, and analytic decisions as they happen, while a report template structures the final manuscript. The two connect, because disciplined contemporaneous records become the audit trail and reflexivity content that the report requires [15].

### How do I present themes and quotations in the findings section?

Present each theme as a named heading or subheading, argue it with a short interpretive paragraph, and support it with two to four participant extracts that clearly illustrate the claim. State whether coding was inductive or deductive before the first theme appears, and keep every extract subordinate to the theme it supports,[10],[6].

### Do I need qualitative analysis software to use these templates?

No. Software such as NVivo 12 or ATLAS.ti helps manage large corpora and build matrices, and several published studies used it [8],[3]. Small interview studies are routinely analyzed and reported well without it. What the template requires is a documented, reproducible analytic process, not a particular tool.

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "FAQPage",
  "mainEntity": [
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "What is the best qualitative research report template for a first study?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "For a first interview-based or focus-group-based study aimed at a health journal, the checklist-anchored template built around reflexive thematic analysis and mapped onto COREQ is the strongest starting point, because journals recognize it and it prompts the disclosures reviewers request most often. If your study is descriptive and embedded in an evaluation, the qualitative descriptive template is lighter and equally acceptable."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "What is the difference between COREQ and SRQR?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "COREQ is a 32-item checklist specific to interviews and focus groups, while SRQR is a 21-item checklist covering a broader range of qualitative designs. Some teams use both, with SRQR framing the whole report and COREQ adding interview-specific disclosure. Check your target journal, because many name one or the other in their author guidelines."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Can one template cover a mixed-methods study?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Yes, but only if the template contains a dedicated integration section that explains how the qualitative and quantitative strands relate, plus strand-specific limitations. Convergent parallel designs and embedded qualitative components within trials both require this architecture."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Is a lab notebook template PDF a substitute for a report template?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "No. A lab notebook template PDF documents fieldwork events, memos, and analytic decisions as they happen, while a report template structures the final manuscript. The two connect, because disciplined contemporaneous records become the audit trail and reflexivity content that the report requires."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "How do I present themes and quotations in the findings section?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Present each theme as a named heading or subheading, argue it with a short interpretive paragraph, and support it with two to four participant extracts that clearly illustrate the claim. State whether coding was inductive or deductive before the first theme appears, and keep every extract subordinate to the theme it supports."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Do I need qualitative analysis software to use these templates?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "No. Software such as NVivo or ATLAS.ti helps manage large corpora and build matrices, and several published studies used it. Small interview studies are routinely analyzed and reported well without it. What the template requires is a documented, reproducible analytic process, not a particular tool."
      }
    }
  ]
}
</script>

## Sources

1. [Clinical laboratory diagnostic stewardship as boundary infrastructure: a multi-stakeholder qualitative study of digital public health governance in two Chinese regional referral hospitals.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42865610/)
2. [Mentor and mentee experiences of the NMC-CBME mentorship programme in India: a two-centre qualitative study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42989174/)
3. ["Bureaucratic Blockage" in Healthcare Resource Management: A Qualitative Study of Nurse Managers' Operational Decisions.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/43012361/)
4. [Challenges faced by the nurses working in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry - A qualitative study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/43011927/)
5. [Anticipated and experienced barriers to safe discussion of menopausal symptom management: an exploratory qualitative comparison of premenopausal and postmenopausal women in the UK.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42994150/)
6. [Disability and Belonging in Medicine: A Qualitative Study of Physicians with Disabilities.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/43009702/)
7. ["I Took the Charge": Coercive Control, Legal Vulnerability, and Intimate Partner Violence Service Navigation Among Black Women Under Community Supervision: A Qualitative Study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/43010699/)
8. [Research Priorities of Children and Young People with Type 1 Diabetes: A Qualitative Study of Age-Specific Needs.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/43010916/)
9. [Changes in research competency of public health personnel following an empowerment-based capacity development program in Thailand: a convergent parallel mixed-methods study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42846589/)
10. [Clinical Decision-Making Among Community Nurses: A Comparative Human and Generative AI-Assisted Qualitative Analysis.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42967829/)
11. [Experiences of telehealth-delivered occupational performance coaching among Palestinian mothers of autistic children: a qualitative study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42909025/)
12. [Qualitative insights from partners of individuals with Huntington's disease: the quality of life of an under-researched population.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/43010058/)
13. [Co-Designing the Primary Care Individual Social Norms Musculoskeletal Data Dashboard (PRISM) for First Contact Physiotherapy: Consensus-Based Qualitative Study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42912182/)
14. [Experiences and perceptions of weight change among people living with HIV receiving antiretroviral therapy: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/43011147/)
15. [Exploring and strengthening day-to-day teamwork in critical care: a qualitative study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42906290/)