If you are utilizing Qualitative research design, I would strongly suggest using both would assure you to yield a more reliable and valid findings of your study.

I think using the COREQ checklist is a good idea. There is a tendency these days to over structure qualitative research with theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Their use depends on what you want to accomplish. If you only want more in-depth information on known factors, use a framework that identifies those factors. If you want to know what is yet unknown about a topic, use the literature to give you some background. In rehab, for example, you can ask what is the experience of having knee replacement surgery? Let people who have had that post-op experience in rehab tell you what they went through and be open to their comments.

Since I had that experience a few years ago, I can tell you the pain was so bad, I don't know how patients live with chronic intense pain. As a healthcare provider, it made me more empathetic to those patients. I can also tell you, I wanted to know how each of the exercises I was instructed to do was helping different muscles or functions. I doubt that's in the literature. Using that knee replacement example you can use a framework that describes pain, mobility, etc as part of that experience and get more in-depth information on those components.

The downside of the framework is you might miss learning something new.

Good luck

Hi Abdullah H Assiri

Both are preferable. COREQ will surely have a positive impact on overall quality of reporting. Making sure that every single aspect of the study is tackled accordingly. Readers will gain a better grasp of the study's design, methodology, and analysis as a result of the theoretical framework provided by the author.

The use of COREQ or any other checklist is relatively controversial within qualitative research, as described in the attached article.

Personally, I would just emphasize how your chosen method is appropriate for your research goals and leave it at that.