From retrospective to prospective design: a short communication on why the methodological paradigm for qualitative research on delayed medical consultation in obstructive sleep apnea may need to be reconstructed.
Qualitative research offers key insights into enablers and obstacles of healthcare-seeking behavior, and the credibility of findings depends on methodological quality. This study aims to critically appraise the methodological quality of existing qualitative studies on delayed medical consultation in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients, thereby identifying common limitations and offering recommendations for future improvements.
A systematic search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases, covering literature from inception to February 2026. Inclusion criteria were qualitative studies (e.g., phenomenological, ethnographic, or grounded theory paradigms) on medical consultation delays in adult OSA patients, excluding single-case studies or narrative reports with very small samples. Two reviewers independently assessed studies against five dimensions, with disagreements resolved by discussion.
Three studies were included, from which eight methodological issues were identified: (1) potential "survivorship bias" from including only diagnosed patients; (2) recall bias in retrospective designs; (3) insufficient consideration of the role of comorbidities in the healthcare-seeking process; (4) unclear directionality between cognitive factors and delayed behavior; (5) lack of in-depth analysis of deviant cases; (6) oversimplified view of family/friend support; (7) insufficient transparency in reporting interview guides and data saturation; and (8) absence of researcher reflexivity during data collection and analysis.
Current qualitative studies on delayed medical consultation in OSA patients have several methodological flaws that may affect their validity. Future research should prioritize prospective, community-based studies targeting high-risk OSA populations not yet seeking medical help, and comprehensively document the entire trajectory of their medical consultation delay. This will enhance research rigor and provide clearer guidance for developing more actionable intervention strategies.
A systematic search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases, covering literature from inception to February 2026. Inclusion criteria were qualitative studies (e.g., phenomenological, ethnographic, or grounded theory paradigms) on medical consultation delays in adult OSA patients, excluding single-case studies or narrative reports with very small samples. Two reviewers independently assessed studies against five dimensions, with disagreements resolved by discussion.
Three studies were included, from which eight methodological issues were identified: (1) potential "survivorship bias" from including only diagnosed patients; (2) recall bias in retrospective designs; (3) insufficient consideration of the role of comorbidities in the healthcare-seeking process; (4) unclear directionality between cognitive factors and delayed behavior; (5) lack of in-depth analysis of deviant cases; (6) oversimplified view of family/friend support; (7) insufficient transparency in reporting interview guides and data saturation; and (8) absence of researcher reflexivity during data collection and analysis.
Current qualitative studies on delayed medical consultation in OSA patients have several methodological flaws that may affect their validity. Future research should prioritize prospective, community-based studies targeting high-risk OSA populations not yet seeking medical help, and comprehensively document the entire trajectory of their medical consultation delay. This will enhance research rigor and provide clearer guidance for developing more actionable intervention strategies.