定性研究常用的质量评价工具有Joanna Briggs循证卫生保健中心质性研究评价标准(JBI-QARI)、关键质量评估技能项目(Critical appraisal skills programme, CASP)、Evaluation for qualitative research和COREQ。本文主要介绍CASP方法学质量评价工具。。
关键词：Meta分析; 定性研究质量评价; CASP; 关键质量评估技能项目
一、定性研究质量评价CASP清单使用方法
CASP是英国牛津大学循证医学中心制定的质量评价项目，可用于评估随机对照试验、队列研究、病例对照研究、定性研究等多种设计类型的研究质量，每个清单包含约10-12个问题。本文着重介绍CASP定性研究质量评价清单。
在评估定性研究时需要考虑研究结果的有效性、研究结果的内容、结果是否适用三个方面的问题。CASP定性研究质量评价清单旨在帮助系统地思考这些问题。 CASP定性研究质量评价清单由10个问题组成，主要涵盖研究目的、研究方法、研究设计、对象招募、数据收集、研究者与参与者的关系、医学伦理、数据分析、研究结果和研究价值等方面。前两个问题是“筛选问题”，用于快速判断是否有必要开展后续的条目评价，所有的条目需用“是”、“无法判断”或“否”来回答。
二、定性研究质量评价CASP清单
| 条目 | 选项 | 提示 |
| 1. Was there a clear statement of the aim of the research? | Yes Can’t tell No | ① what was the goal of the research ② why it was thought important ③ its relevance |
| 译文：1. 是否清楚阐述了研究目的？ | 是 无法判断 否 | ① 研究的目的是什么 ② 为什么研究目的很重要 ③ 意义何在 |
| 2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? | Yes Can’t tell No | ① If the research seeks to interpret or illuminate the actions and/or subjective experiences of research participants ② Is qualitative research the right methodology for addressing the research goal |
| 译文：2. 定性研究的方法是否合适？ | 是 无法判断 否 | ① 研究是否旨在解释或阐明受试者的行为和/或主观体验 ② 定性研究是实现研究目的的正确方法吗 |
| 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? | Yes Can’t tell No | if the researcher has justified the research design (e.g. have they discussed how they decided which method to use) |
| 译文：3. 研究设计是否适合于实现研究目的？ | 是 无法判断 否 | 研究人员是否已经证明了研究设计的合理性(例如，他们是否讨论过如何决定使用哪种方法) |
| 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? | Yes Can’t tell No | ① If the researcher has explained how the participants were selected ② If they explained why the participants they selected were the most appropriate to provide access to the type of knowledge sought by the study ③ If there are any discussions around recruitment (e.g. why some people chose not to take part) |
| 译文：4. 研究对象的招募方式是否适合研究目标？ | 是 无法判断 否 | ① 研究人员是否阐述了受试者的筛选过程 ② 研究人员是否解释所筛选受试者的合理性 ③ 是否有任何关于研究对象招募的讨论(例如，为什么有些患者需要被剔除) |
| 5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? | Yes Can’t tell No | ① If the setting for the data collection was justified ② If it is clear how data were collected (e.g. focus group, semi-structured interview etc.) ③ If the researcher has justified the methods chosen ④ If the researcher has made the methods explicit (e.g. for interview method, is there an indication of how interviews are conducted, or did they use a topic guide) ⑤ If methods were modified during the study. If so, has the researcher explained how and why ⑥ If the form of data is clear (e.g. tape recordings, video material, notes etc.) ⑦ If the researcher has discussed saturation of data |
| 译文：5. 收集数据的方式是否能解决研究问题？ | 是 无法判断 否 | ① 数据收集的场景是否合理 ② 是否阐明数据是如何收集的(例如焦点小组访谈、半结构化访谈等) ③ 研究人员是否论证了所选方法的合理性 ④ 研究人员是否详细介绍了方法细节(例如，对于访谈方法，是否有说明访谈是如何进行的，或者他们是否有访谈提纲) ⑤ 是否在研究期间修改方法。如果是，是否解释了如何修改以及修改的原因 ⑥ 数据形式是否清晰(例如磁带录音、视频材料、笔记等) ⑦ 研究人员是否讨论了数据的信息饱和度 |
| 6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? | Yes Can’t tell No | ① If the researcher critically examined their own role, potential bias and influence during (a) formulation of the research questions (b) data collection, including sample recruitment and choice of location ② How the researcher responded to vents during the study and whether they considered the implications of any changes in the research design |
| 译文：6. 是否充分考虑了研究人员和参与者之间的关系？ | 是 无法判断 否 | ① 研究人员是否在(a)制定研究问题和(b)数据收集(包括样本招募和地点选择)期间批判性地审视了自己的角色、潜在的偏倚和影响 ② 研究人员如何应对研究期间的突发事件，以及他们是否考虑了研究设计中任何变化带来的影响 |
| 7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? | Yes Can’t tell No | ① If there are sufficient details of how the research was explained to participants for the reader to assess whether ethical standards were maintained ② If the researcher has discussed issues raised by the study (e.g. issues around informed consent or confidentiality or how they have handled the effects of the study on the participants during and after the study) ③ If approval has been sought from the ethics committee |
| 译文：7. 是否考虑了伦理学问题？ | 是 无法判断 否 | ① 是否详细说明了如何向参与者解释研究内容，以便读者判断是否符合伦理标准 ② 研究人员是否讨论了研究提出的问题(例如，围绕知情同意或保密性的问题，或者他们如何处理在研究期间和之后对受试者的影响) ③ 是否已获得伦理委员会的批准 |
| 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? | Yes Can’t tell No | ① If there is an in-depth description of the analysis process ② If thematic analysis is used. If so, is it clear how the categories/themes were derived from the data ③ Whether the researcher explains how the data presented were selected from the original sample to demonstrate the analysis process ④ If sufficient data are presented to support the findings ⑤ To what extent contradictory data are taken into account ⑥ Whether the researcher critically examined their own role, potential bias and influence during analysis and selection of data for presentation |
| 译文：8. 数据分析是否足够严谨？ | 是 无法判断 否 | ① 是否有分析过程的深入描述 ② 是否使用主题分析法。如果是，是否清楚类别/主题是如何从数据中得出的 ③ 研究人员是否解释如何从原始样本中提取数据，以展示分析过程 ④ 是否有足够的数据来支持调查结果 ⑤ 在多大程度上考虑了相互矛盾的数据 ⑥ 研究人员在分析和提取数据过程中是否批判性地检查了自己的角色、潜在偏倚和影响 |
| 9. Is there a clear statement of findings? | Yes Can’t tell No | ① If the findings are explicit ② If there is adequate discussion of the evidence both for and against the researcher’s arguments ③ If the researcher has discussed the credibility of their findings (e.g. triangulation, respondent validation, more than one analyst) ④ If the findings are discussed in relation to the original research question |
| 译文：9. 是否清楚地描述了调查结果？ | 是 无法判断 否 | ① 研究结果是否明确 ② 是否充分地讨论了支持和反对研究人员观点的证据 ③ 研究人员是否讨论了研究结果的可靠性(例如三角互证、应答者验证、多名统计分析人员) ④ 是否针对研究结果与原始研究问题的相关性进行了探讨 |
| 10. How valuable is the research? | ① If the researcher discusses the contribution the study makes to existing knowledge or understanding (e.g. do they consider the findings in relation to current practice or policy, or relevant research-based literature) ② If they identify new areas where research is necessary ③ If the researchers have discussed whether or how the findings can be transferred to other populations or considered other ways the research may be used | |
| 译文：10. 研究的价值有多大？ | ① 研究人员是否讨论了该研究对拓展现有知识或加深知识理解的贡献(例如是否将研究发现置身于当前实践、政策或研究文献中予以讨论) ② 是否确定了需要研究的新领域 ③ 研究人员是否讨论了可以或如何将研究结果运用到其他人群，或者考虑使用其他方式进行研究 |
注：本文内容是参考相关文献后对关键质量评估技能项目(Critical appraisal skills programme, CASP)的概述，仅代表本网站观点。关于CASP定性研究质量评价清单更多内容详见网站(https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/qualitative-studies-checklist/)。
End