Quality of Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences : Analysis of the Common Criteria Present in 58 Assessment Guidelines by Expert Users

The number of qualitative research methods has grown substantially over the last twenty years, both in social sciences and, more recently, in the health sciences. This growth came with questions on the quality criteria needed to evaluate this work, and numerous guidelines were published. The latters include many discrepancies though, both in their vocabulary and construction. Many expert evaluators decry the absence of consensual and reliable evaluation tools. The authors present the results of an evaluation of 58 existing guidelines in 4 major health science fields (medicine and epidemiology; nursing and health education; social sciences and public health; psychology / psychiatry, research methods and organization) by expert users (article reviewers, experts allocating funds, editors, etc.). The results propose a toolbox containing 12 consensual criteria with the definitions given by expert users. They also indicate in which disciplinary field each type of criteria is known to be more or less essential. Nevertheless, the authors highlight the limitations of the criteria comparability, as soon as one focuses on their specific definitions. They conclude that each criterion in the toolbox must be explained to come to broader consensus and identify definitions that are consensual to all the fields examined and easily operational.

Diversity of the Quality Criteria in Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences: Lessons from a Lexicometric Analysis Composed of 133 Guidelines

A review of health sciences literature shows a substantial increase in qualitative publications. This work incorporates a certain number of research quality guidelines. We present the results of the Alceste® lexicometric analysis, which includes 133 quality grids for qualitative research covering five disciplinary fields of the health sciences: medicine and epidemiology, public health and health education, nursing, health sociology and anthropology, psychiatry and psychology. This analysis helped to cross-check the disciplinary fields with the various objectives assigned to the different criteria in the grids examined. The results obtained with Alceste® show the variability of the objectives sought by the authors of the guidelines. These discrepancies are not directly associated to disciplinary fields, and appear to be more closely linked to different qualitative research conceptualizations within the disciplines, and with essential qualitative research validation criteria. These conceptualizations must be clarified to help users better understand the objectives targeted by the grids, and promote more appreciation for qualitative research in the health sciences.

Complexity of the Paradigms Present in Quality Criteria of Qualitative Research Grids

With qualitative methods being increasingly used in health science fields, numerous grids proposing criteria to evaluate the quality of this type of research have been produced. Expert evaluators deem that there is a lack of consensual tools to evaluate qualitative research. Based on the review of 133 quality criteria grids for qualitative research in health sciences, the authors present the results of a computerized lexicometric analysis, which confirms the variety of intra- and inter-grid constructions, including within the same field. This variety is linked to the authors' paradigmatic references underlying the criteria proposed. These references seem to be built intuitively, reflecting internal representations of qualitative research, thus making the grids and their criteria hard to compare. Consequently, the consensus on the definitions and the number of criteria becomes problematic. The paradigmatic and theoretical references of the grids should be specified so that users could better assess their contributions and limitations.

Comparative analysis of ten assesment grids of quality criteria in qualitative research

The authors present 10 grids which are widely used in Health Sciences for the assessment of quality in research. They proceed through a comparative thematic analysis of these grids and show which points of view are preferred. They insist on the issues that differentiate these grids from each other and suggest the analysis of their differences by distinguishing the theoretical perspectives that underpin each one of these grids. Whilst the authors of the assessment grids rarely refer to the implicit theoretical backgrounds that guide their work, findings show that these grids convey varied epistemologies and research models. This gap renders the comparison of quality assessment in qualitative research a very difficult task, unless we shift our focus on the relationship between the grids, their theoretical backgrounds and their specific research subjects.

Absence of progression as assessed by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors predicts survival in advanced GI stromal tumors treated with imatinib mesylate: the intergroup EORTC-ISG-AGITG phase III trial.

PURPOSE: From February 2001 to February 2002, 946 patients with advanced GI stromal tumors (GISTs) treated with imatinib were included in a controlled EORTC/ISG/AGITG (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Italian Sarcoma Group/Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group) trial. This analysis investigates whether the response classification assessed by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), predicts for time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Per protocol, the first three disease assessments were done at 2, 4, and 6 months. For the purpose of the analysis (landmark method), disease response was subclassified in six categories: partial response (PR; > 30% size reduction), minor response (MR; 10% to 30% reduction), no change (NC) as either NC- (0% to 10% reduction) or NC+ (0% to 20% size increase), progressive disease (PD; > 20% increase/new lesions), and subjective PD (clinical progression). RESULTS: A total of 906 patients had measurable disease at entry. At all measurement time points, complete response (CR), PR, and MR resulted in similar TTP and OS; this was also true for NC- and NC+, and for PD and subjective PD. Patients were subsequently classified as responders (CR/PR/MR), NC (NC+/NC-), or PD. This three-class response categorization was found to be highly predictive of further progression or survival for the first two measurement points. After 6 months of imatinib, responders (CR/PR/MR) had the same survival prognosis as patients classified as NC. CONCLUSION: RECIST perfectly enables early discrimination between patients who benefited long term from imatinib and those who did not. After 6 months of imatinib, if the patient is not experiencing PD, the pattern of radiologic response by tumor size criteria has no prognostic value for further outcome. Imatinib needs to be continued as long as there is no progression according to RECIST.

Quantitative and qualitative research on brief systemic therapies carried out within the framework of an ambulatory consultation for couples and families

Abstract: This article presents both a brief systemic intervention method (IBS) consisting in 6 sessions developed in an ambulatory service for couples and families, and two research projects done in collaboration with the Institute for Psychotherapy of the University of Lausanne. The first project is quantitative and it aims at evaluating the effectiveness of ISB. One of its main feature is that outcomes are assessed at different levels of individual and family functioning: 1) symptoms and individual functioning; 2) quality of marital relationship; 3) parental and co-parental relationships; 4) familial relationships. The second project is a qualitative case study about a marital therapy which identifies and analyses significant moments of the therapeutic process from the patients' perspective. Methodology was largely inspired by Daniel Stem's work about "moments of meeting" in psychotherapy. Results show that patients' theories about relationship and change are important elements that deepen our understanding of the change process in couple and family therapy. The interest of associating clinicians and researchers for the development and validation of a new clinical model is discussed.

Implementation and evaluation of an internet health site for adolescents in Switzerland.

Ciao is a website specifically designed for young people and focuses mainly on health issues. This report presents the process of setting up the site and a first evaluation undertaken by using two self-administered questionnaires administered via the website itself. It suggests that it is possible to provide young people with authoritative health information and to facilitate their access to counseling and health care facilities by having young people use such a website.

Investigação qualitativa e abordagem psico-cultural do desvio [Qualitative research and psycho-cultural approaches of deviance]

Qualitative research and psycho-cultural approaches to deviant behaviour¦In this paper, the authors discuss the relevance of some historical, theoretical and¦methodological features of qualitative research for a psycho-cultural approach to¦deviance. Specifically, three methods are presented: ethnography, life stories and¦grounded theory. Some common features of these methods are: their potentialities of¦articulation with other methods, their plasticity and their procedures grounded in¦research contexts, experiences and meanings lived by participants. The role of the¦researcher, as well as the constructed and dialogical characteristics of both process¦and products of research, are also emphasised in these approaches. In this way,¦qualitative methods seem particularly adequate to a psycho-cultural approach to¦deviance, allowing the research of "hidden" phenomena and an understanding of¦deviance that takes into account its cultural norms. Thus, qualitative research is as a¦methodological device which allows to get beyond the traditional ethnocentrism of psychology.

A Thematic Comparison of Eight Frameworks of Quality Criteria in Qualitative Health Research

Background: Despite the increasing incidences of the publication of assessment frameworks intending to establish the "standards" of the quality of qualitative research, the research conducted using such empirical methods are still facing difficulties in being published or recognised by funding agencies. Methods: We conducted a thematic content analysis of eight frameworks from psychology/psychiatry and general medicine. The frameworks and their criteria are then compared against each other. Findings: The results illustrated the difficulties in reaching consensus on the definition of quality criteria. This showed the differences between the frameworks from the point of views of the underlying epistemology and the criteria suggested. Discussion: The aforementioned differences reflect the diversity of paradigms implicitly referred to by the authors of the frameworks, although rarely explicitly mentioned in text. We conclude that the increase in qualitative research and publications has failed to overcome the difficulties in establishing shared criteria and the great heterogeneity of concepts raises methodological and epistemological problems.