Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research

Nicola K Gale, Gemma Heath, Elaine Cameron, Sabina Rashid, Sabi Redwood, Nicola K Gale, Gemma Heath, Elaine Cameron, Sabina Rashid, Sabi Redwood

Abstract

Background: The Framework Method is becoming an increasingly popular approach to the management and analysis of qualitative data in health research. However, there is confusion about its potential application and limitations.

Discussion: The article discusses when it is appropriate to adopt the Framework Method and explains the procedure for using it in multi-disciplinary health research teams, or those that involve clinicians, patients and lay people. The stages of the method are illustrated using examples from a published study.

Summary: Used effectively, with the leadership of an experienced qualitative researcher, the Framework Method is a systematic and flexible approach to analysing qualitative data and is appropriate for use in research teams even where not all members have previous experience of conducting qualitative research.

References

    1. Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage; 2003.
    1. Ives J, Damery S, Redwod S. PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who's sailing the ship? J Med Ethics. 2013;39(3):181–185. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100150.
    1. Heath G, Cameron E, Cummins C, Greenfield S, Pattison H, Kelly D, Redwood S. Paediatric ‘care closer to home’: stake-holder views and barriers to implementation. Health Place. 2012;18(5):1068–1073. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.05.003.
    1. Elkington H, White P, Addington-Hall J, Higgs R, Petternari C. The last year of life of COPD: a qualitative study of symptoms and services. Respir Med. 2004;98(5):439–445. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2003.11.006.
    1. Murtagh J, Dixey R, Rudolf M. A qualitative investigation into the levers and barriers to weight loss in children: opinions of obese children. Archives Dis Child. 2006;91(11):920–923. doi: 10.1136/adc.2005.085712.
    1. Barnard M, Webster S, O’Connor W, Jones A, Donmall M. The drug treatment outcomes research study (DTORS): qualitative study. London: Home Office; 2009.
    1. Ayatollahi H, Bath PA, Goodacre S. Factors influencing the use of IT in the emergency department: a qualitative study. Health Inform J. 2010;16(3):189–200. doi: 10.1177/1460458210377480.
    1. Sheard L, Prout H, Dowding D, Noble S, Watt I, Maraveyas A, Johnson M. Barriers to the diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study. Palliative Med. 2012;27(2):339–348.
    1. Ellis J, Wagland R, Tishelman C, Williams ML, Bailey CD, Haines J, Caress A, Lorigan P, Smith JA, Booton R. et al.Considerations in developing and delivering a nonpharmacological intervention for symptom management in lung cancer: the views of patients and informal caregivers. J Pain Symptom Manag (0) 2012;44(6):831–842. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.12.274.
    1. Gale N, Sultan H. Telehealth as ‘peace of mind’: embodiment, emotions and the home as the primary health space for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder. Health place. 2013;21:140–147.
    1. Rashidian A, Eccles MP, Russell I. Falling on stony ground? A qualitative study of implementation of clinical guidelines’ prescribing recommendations in primary care. Health policy. 2008;85(2):148–161. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.07.011.
    1. Jones RK. The unsolicited diary as a qualitative research tool for advanced research capacity in the field of health and illness. Qualitative Health Res. 2000;10(4):555–567. doi: 10.1177/104973200129118543.
    1. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. British Med J. 2000;320:114–116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114.
    1. Pope C, Mays N. Critical reflections on the rise of qualitative research. British Med J. 2009;339:737–739.
    1. Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London: Longman; 2010.
    1. Garfinkel H. Ethnomethodology’s program. Soc Psychol Quarter. 1996;59(1):5–21. doi: 10.2307/2787116.
    1. Merleau-Ponty M. The phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1962.
    1. Svenaeus F. Handbook of phenomenology and medicine. Netherlands: Springer; 2001. The phenomenology of health and illness; pp. 87–108.
    1. Reissmann CK. Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: Sage; 2008.
    1. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006.
    1. Glaser A, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.
    1. Crotty M. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage; 1998.
    1. Boeije H. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Qual Quant. 2002;36(4):391–409. doi: 10.1023/A:1020909529486.
    1. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
    1. Redwood S, Gale NK, Greenfield S. ‘You give us rangoli, we give you talk’: using an art-based activity to elicit data from a seldom heard group. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-7.
    1. Mishler EG. In: The sociology of health and illness: critical perspectives. Third. Conrad P, Kern R, editor. New York: St Martins Press; 1990. The struggle between the voice of medicine and the voice of the lifeworld.
    1. Hodges BD, Kuper A, Reeves S. Discourse analysis. British Med J. 2008;337:570–572. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Writing the proposal for a qualitative research methodology project. Qual Health Res. 2003;13(6):781–820. doi: 10.1177/1049732303013006003.
    1. Ellins J. It’s better together: involving older people in research. HSMC Newsletter Focus Serv Users Publ. 2010;16(1):4.
    1. Phillimore J, Goodson L, Hennessy D, Ergun E. Empowering Birmingham’s migrant and refugee community organisations: making a difference. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2009.
    1. Leamy M, Clough R. How older people became researchers. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2006.
    1. Glasby J, Miller R, Ellins J, Durose J, Davidson D, McIver S, Littlechild R, Tanner D, Snelling I, Spence K. Understanding and improving transitions of older people: a user and carer centred approach. London: The Stationery Office; 2012. (Final report NIHR service delivery and organisation programme).
    1. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage; 2009.
    1. Lincoln YS. Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qual Inquiry. 1995;1(3):275–289. doi: 10.1177/107780049500100301.
    1. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ British Med J. 2000;320(7226):50. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50.
    1. Seale C. Quality in qualitative research. Qual Inquiry. 1999;5(4):465–478. doi: 10.1177/107780049900500402.
    1. Dingwall R, Murphy E, Watson P, Greatbatch D, Parker S. Catching goldfish: quality in qualitative research. J Health serv Res Policy. 1998;3(3):167–172.
    1. Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res. 1998;8(3):341–351. doi: 10.1177/104973239800800305.
    1. Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2008;1(2):13–22.
    1. Smith JA. Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2004;1(1):39–54.
    1. Polit DF, Beck CT. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. Int J Nurs Studies. 2010;47(11):1451–1458. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi