Beyond exploratory: a tailored framework for designing and assessing qualitative health research

Katharine A Rendle, Corey M Abramson, Sarah B Garrett, Meghan C Halley, Daniel Dohan, Katharine A Rendle, Corey M Abramson, Sarah B Garrett, Meghan C Halley, Daniel Dohan

Abstract

The objective of this commentary is to develop a framework for assessing the rigour of qualitative approaches that identifies and distinguishes between the diverse objectives of qualitative health research, guided by a narrative review of the published literature on qualitative guidelines and standards from peer-reviewed journals and national funding organisations that support health services research, patient-centered outcomes research and other applied health research fields. In this framework, we identify and distinguish three objectives of qualitative studies in applied health research: exploratory, descriptive and comparative. For each objective, we propose methodological standards that may be used to assess and improve rigour across all study phases-from design to reporting. Similar to hierarchies of quality of evidence within quantitative studies, we argue that standards for qualitative rigour differ, appropriately, for studies with different objectives and should be evaluated as such. Distinguishing between different objectives of qualitative health research improves the ability to appreciate variation in qualitative studies and to develop appropriate evaluations of the rigour and success of qualitative studies in meeting their stated objectives. Researchers, funders and journal editors should consider how further developing and adopting the framework for assessing qualitative rigour outlined here may advance the rigour and potential impact of this important mode of inquiry.

Keywords: health services research; patient-centered outcomes research; qualitative research.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Three broad types of qualitative health research.

References

    1. Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res 2007;42:1758–72. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x
    1. Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Harrison MI, et al. . Integrating mixed methods in health services and delivery system research. Health Serv Res 2013;48:2125–33. 10.1111/1475-6773.12123
    1. Devers KJ. Qualitative methods in health services and management research: pockets of excellence and progress, but still a long way to go. Med Care Res Rev 2011;68:41–8. 10.1177/1077558710384269
    1. Weiner BJ, Amick HR, Lund JL, et al. . Review: use of qualitative methods in published health services and management research: a 10-year review. Med Care Res Rev 2011;68:3–33. 10.1177/1077558710372810
    1. Hoff TJ, Witt LC. Exploring the use of qualitative methods in published health services and management research. Med Care Res Rev 2000;57:139–60. 10.1177/107755870005700201
    1. Mays N, Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50–2.
    1. Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008;337:a1035 10.1136/bmj.a1035
    1. Cohen D, Crabtree B. Qualitative research guidelines project. Available: [Accessed Jul 2006].
    1. Heurtin-Roberts S. Thoughts on qualitative research methods at NIH. Qualitative Social Work 2002;1:376–9. 10.1177/147332500200100310
    1. Creswell J, Klassen A, Clark P, et al. . Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences. Bethesda, MD: OBSSR, National Institutes of Health, 2011.
    1. Lamont M, White P. Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2008.
    1. Ragin C, Nagel J, White P. Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004.
    1. Vandermause R, Barg FK, Esmail L, et al. . Qualitative methods in patient-centered outcomes research. Qual Health Res 2016.
    1. Hodges BD, Kuper A, Reeves S. Discourse analysis. BMJ 2008;337:a879 10.1136/bmj.a879
    1. Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008;337:a288 10.1136/bmj.a288
    1. Reeves S, Albert M, Kuper A, et al. . Why use theories in qualitative research? BMJ 2008;337:a949 10.1136/bmj.a949
    1. ed):Reeves S, Kuper A, Hodges BD. Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. BMJ Clin Res 2008:337–1020.
    1. Loder E, Groves T, Schroter S, et al. . Qualitative research and The BMJ. BMJ 2016;352 10.1136/bmj.i641
    1. Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, et al. . An open letter to the BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ 2016;352:i563 10.1136/bmj.i563
    1. Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ 2001;322:1115–7. 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
    1. Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design : Choosing among Five Approaches. 2nd ed Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007.
    1. Abramson CM, Joslyn J, Rendle KA, et al. . The promises of computational ethnography: improving transparency, replicability, and validity for realist approaches to ethnographic analysis. Ethnography 2018;19:254–84. 10.1177/1466138117725340
    1. Bunce AE, Gold R, Davis JV, et al. . Ethnographic process evaluation in primary care: explaining the complexity of implementation. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:607 10.1186/s12913-014-0607-0
    1. Maxwell JA. Using qualitative methods for causal explanation. Field methods 2004;16:243–64. 10.1177/1525822X04266831
    1. Walsh D, Downe S. Appraising the quality of qualitative research. Midwifery 2006;22:108–19. 10.1016/j.midw.2005.05.004
    1. Bourgeault IL, Dingwall R, De Vries RG. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2010.
    1. King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.
    1. Representation S-JM. Responsibility and Reliability in Participant Observation : May T, Qualitative research in action. London: Sage, 2002.
    1. Collins PH. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. 1 edition. New York: Routledge, 2008.
    1. Clifford J, Marcus GE. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press: Berkeley CA, 1986.
    1. Latour B, Woolgar S, Salk J. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. 2nd edn Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1986.
    1. Hickam D, Totten A, Rader K, et al. . The PCORI Methodology Report. Washington, DC: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, 2013.
    1. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications, 2011.
    1. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. . Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 2014;89:1245–51.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–57. 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. . Grade: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924–6. 10.1136/

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する