Qualitative Research Paper Example: Annotated Results Section with Themes, Quotes and COREQ Mapping

In qualitative research, the results section is where reviewers test whether themes are analytically derived or merely topic summaries. COREQ Domain 3 (items 24–32) and SRQR items 16–17 set out what must be visible: who coded the data, how themes were derived, how participant quotations support each claim, and whether major and minor themes are distinguished [1, 2]. This qualitative results section example is annotated and mapped to COREQ.

Each theme should follow a consistent sequence: a theme name stated as a central organising concept, a one-sentence analytic claim, subthemes that show the dimensions of that concept, participant quotations with identifiers, and an interpretive sentence linking the evidence back to the claim. Braun and Clarke distinguish such themes from “domain summaries” that simply list what participants said about a topic [3]. The analytic narrative, not the quotation, carries the argument.

Illustrative study (hypothetical): experiences of early-career nurses managing night-shift handover. Semi-structured interviews with 18 registered nurses across three hospitals; reflexive thematic analysis [4, 3]; two coders; NVivo 14; sample adequacy justified with information power rather than data saturation alone [5, 6]. The quotations below are invented to demonstrate formatting.

Results (example text). Three themes were constructed: (1) handover as risk containment, (2) negotiating hierarchy at 3 a.m., and (3) carrying the unfinished shift. A minor theme, informal digital workarounds, was identified in a subset of accounts. The full coding tree is provided in Supplementary Table S2.

Annotation: names every theme in one sentence (COREQ item 31), signals the minor theme explicitly (item 32) and points to the coding tree (item 25).

Theme 1: Handover as risk containment. Participants framed handover not as information transfer but as a way of limiting their personal exposure to error. This was expressed through two subthemes: defensive documentation and selective disclosure. Several nurses described rewriting notes before handover to protect themselves: “If it’s not written, it didn’t happen, so I write everything twice before I hand over” (P07, ward nurse, 14 months’ experience). Others withheld uncertain observations: “You don’t mention a hunch at handover; you only say what you can defend” (P12, ICU nurse, 2 years).

Theme 2: Negotiating hierarchy at 3 a.m. Escalation decisions were shaped less by clinical thresholds than by the perceived approachability of the on-call doctor. One participant rehearsed a call before making it: “I practise the sentence three times so I don’t sound stupid” (P03). Nurses on wards with structured escalation tools reported less hesitation, indicating that the hierarchy effect is context dependent.

Annotation: the contrasting case strengthens credibility and shows that themes were not built only from confirming data. Comparison across settings adds the interpretive depth peer reviewers expect.

Minor theme: Informal digital workarounds. Four participants described using personal messaging apps to supplement handover. Although limited in prevalence, this theme is reported because it identifies a governance risk not captured in formal procedures.

Annotation: minor themes are labelled and justified (item 32). “Four participants” describes the boundary of a minor theme; counts are not used as evidence of importance.

Reviewers read the results against the methods. Every analytic claim should trace to a described procedure: the coding approach (inductive, deductive or hybrid), the number of coders, how differences in coding were handled, and the researcher’s role. In reflexive thematic analysis, two coders are not used to calculate inter-rater reliability; collaborative coding is reported as a way of enriching interpretation [3]. Say so explicitly, so that peer reviewers do not ask for a kappa statistic that conflicts with the paradigm.

COREQ Domain 1 (research team and reflexivity) also shapes how results are read. Reporting the interviewer’s background, prior relationship with participants and assumptions about the topic lets readers judge how researcher position shaped the themes [1]. Descriptors attached to quotations, such as role, setting and experience, should match the participant characteristics table so that the audit trail is consistent [8].

Table 1 maps COREQ Domain 3 to the example. Items 24–28 sit under data analysis and items 29–32 under reporting [1]. On item 28, member checking is contested as a validation step [7], so report what you did and why.

• Strings of quotations: extracts presented with little or no analytic narrative, which Braun and Clarke warn against [4].
• Topic-label themes: headings such as “Barriers” or “Training” that describe a question rather than a pattern of shared meaning [3].
• Quantifying significance: using “most participants” as evidence. In reflexive thematic analysis, importance is argued analytically, not numerically.
• Unsupported saturation claims: stating that data saturation was reached without saying which model of saturation was applied [6].
• Missing audit trail: no link between codes, candidate themes and final themes, which limits research transparency [8].

For designs beyond interviews and focus groups, SRQR is the broader standard [2]. Whichever checklist applies, check the journal requirements and keep a clear connection between collected data, coding and reported findings.