| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
DEVELOPING RESEARCH |
1 Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 6TP, UK
2 Department of Psychology, Birkbeck College, University of London, London WC1E 7HX, UK
Correspondence to:
M Dixon-Woods
Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22–28 Princess Road West, Leicester LE1 6TP, UK; md11{at}le.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
Qualitative research can make a valuable contribution to the study of quality and safety in health care. Sound ways of appraising qualitative research are needed, but currently there are many different proposals with few signs of an emerging consensus. One problem has been the tendency to treat qualitative research as a unified field. We distinguish universal features of quality from those specific to methodology and offer a set of minimally prescriptive prompts to assist with the assessment of generic features of qualitative research. In using these, account will need to be taken of the particular method of data collection and methodological approach being used. There may be a need for appraisal criteria suited to the different methods of qualitative data collection and to different methodological approaches. These more specific criteria would help to distinguish fatal flaws from more minor errors in the design, conduct, and reporting of qualitative research. There will be difficulties in doing this because some aspects of qualitative research, particularly those relating to quality of insight and interpretation, will remain difficult to appraise and will rely largely on subjective judgement.
Keywords: qualitative research
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S Thomas, D Fayter, K Misso, D Ogilvie, M Petticrew, A Sowden, M Whitehead, and G Worthy Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review Tob. Control, August 1, 2008; 17(4): 230 - 237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Cohen and B. F. Crabtree Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2008; 6(4): 331 - 339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Tong, A. Lowe, P. Sainsbury, and J. C. Craig Experiences of Parents Who Have Children With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies Pediatrics, February 1, 2008; 121(2): 349 - 360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Tong, P. Sainsbury, and J. Craig Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups Int. J. Qual. Health Care, December 1, 2007; 19(6): 349 - 357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Flemming The synthesis of qualitative research and evidence-based nursing Evid. Based Nurs., July 1, 2007; 10(3): 68 - 71. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. R Goldsmith, C. R Bankhead, and J. Austoker Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in evidence-based patient information J Epidemiol Community Health, March 1, 2007; 61(3): 262 - 270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. El Ansari and E. S Weiss Quality of research on community partnerships: developing the evidence base Health Educ. Res., April 1, 2006; 21(2): 175 - 180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Oliver, A. Harden, R. Rees, J. Shepherd, G. Brunton, J. Garcia, and A. Oakley An Emerging Framework for Including Different Types of Evidence in Systematic Reviews for Public Policy Evaluation, October 1, 2005; 11(4): 428 - 446. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
