Qualitative research reporting in genetic counseling: A state‐of‐the‐art assessment and recommendations for enhancing methodological congruence and quality

Qualitative research plays a growing role in advancing genetic counseling scholarship through deep insights into experiences, contexts, and systems that shape health outcomes. These perspectives can inform effective and equitable patient-centered care. However, qualitative research's potential to inform practice and policy remains limited by persistent concerns with respect to quality. These limitations result from the application of quantitative ideals of quality that are being borrowed or forced onto non-positivist research paradigms. Also, attempting to apply a single set of quality practices across a vast array of diverse qualitative paradigms is equally problematic. This review provides a comprehensive assessment of the reporting practices of qualitative research (including mixed methods research and open-ended questions in quantitative surveys) published in the Journal of Genetic Counseling over a period of 1 year. Thirty-four articles were evaluated using a subjective, values-based framework consisting of methodological congruence, knowingness, and transparency. In addition to examples illustrating methodological (in)congruence, I also discuss a typology of qualitative research that lends itself to achieving methodological congruence, and reflective questions for researchers, reviewers, editors, and knowledge users aiming to facilitate improved quality and rigor in qualitative inquiry. The findings of this review suggest there is a need to shift how qualitative research is taught, conducted, reviewed, and published within the field of genetic counseling and other allied healthcare contexts. By fostering clarity without compromising creativity, we can elevate the credibility, utility, and impact of qualitative inquiry within genetic counseling scholarship and broader applied health contexts.