{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02179379715004191, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.941860465116279, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how?

Systematic reviews of qualitative research have increasing currency for evidence-based policy-making. Potentially, this can prevent further marginalization of qualitative evidence, increase our understanding of the body of work undertaken by qualitative researchers and allow broader, more overarching theories about studied phenomenon to be built. Qualitative researchers have so far failed to agree what constitutes “validity” or “quality” in their work: these debates have mirrored the epistemological differences within which such research is undertaken. This paper explores the arguments about quality appraisal and, drawing on this literature, builds a proposal to which, it is hoped, qualitative researchers from across disciplines may be able to ascribe. Technical reporting standards could be agreed that make the conduct of the research clearer. Additional elements, related to study trustworthiness and theoretical and practical considerations, could be appraised discursively, allowing the intention of the researchers working within their particular milieu to be accommodated.