"It's no skin off my nose":Why people take part in qualitative research

In this article, the authors analyze participants' accounts of why they took part in a repeat-interview study exploring newly diagnosed patients' perceptions of diabetes service provision in Lothian, Scotland. The study involved three semistructured in-depth interviews with each patient (N = 40), which spanned a year. The authors provide a thematic discursive analysis of responses to the question, Can I ask you what made you decide to part in the study and why you've stayed involved over the past year? The main themes are (a) recruitment within health contexts ("the nurse said it would help"), (b) altruism ("if it can help somebody"), (c) qualitative research being seen as inherently innocuous ("nothing to lose"), and (d) therapeutic aspects of interviewing ("getting it off my chest"). The analysis contributes both to the qualitative literature about generic research participation and to a germinal literature exploring qualitative health research participation. © 2006 Sage Publications.

Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews:A quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods

Objective: Qualitative research is increasingly valued as part of the evidence for policy and practice, but how it should be appraised is contested. Various appraisal methods, including checklists and other structured approaches, have been proposed but rarely evaluated. We aimed to compare three methods for appraising qualitative research papers that were candidates for inclusion in a systematic review of evidence on support for breast-feeding. Method: A sample of 12 research papers on support for breast-feeding was appraised by six qualitative reviewers using three appraisal methods: unprompted judgement, based on expert opinion; a UK Cabinet Office quality framework; and CASP, a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Papers were assigned, following appraisals, to 1 of 5 categories, which were dichotomized to indicate whether or not papers should be included in a systematic review. Patterns of agreement in categorization of papers were assessed quantitatively using κ statistics, and qualitatively using cross-case analysis. Results: Agreement in categorizing papers across the three methods was slight (κ =0.13; 95% CI 0.06-0.24). Structured approaches did not appear to yield higher agreement than that by unprompted judgement. Qualitative analysis revealed reviewers' dilemmas in deciding between the potential impact of findings and the quality of the research execution or reporting practice. Structured instruments appeared to make reviewers more explicit about the reasons for their judgements. Conclusions: Structured approaches may not produce greater consistency of judgements about whether to include qualitative papers in a systematic review. Future research should address how appraisals of qualitative research should be incorporated in systematic reviews. © The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd 2007.

How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective

Systematic review has developed as a specific methodology for searching for, appraising and synthesizing findings of primary studies, and has rapidly become a cornerstone of the evidence-based practice and policy movement. Qualitative research has traditionally been excluded from systematic reviews, and much effort is now being invested in resolving the daunting methodological and epistemological challenges associated with trying to move towards more inclusive forms of review. We describe our experiences, as a very diverse multidisciplinary group, in attempting to incorporate qualitative research in a systematic review of support for breastfeeding. We show how every stage of the review process, from asking the review question through to searching for and sampling the evidence, appraising the evidence and producing a synthesis, provoked profound questions about whether a review that includes qualitative research can remain consistent with the frame offered by current systematic review methodology. We conclude that more debate and dialogue between the different communities that wish to develop review methodology is needed, and that attempts to impose dominant views about the appropriate means of conducting reviews of qualitative research should be resisted so that innovation can be fostered. Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications.

The problem of appraising qualitative research

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.

What do we know about the experience of age related macular degeneration? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research

Age Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of registerable blindness with a high medical and societal cost burden. Much of the research examining experiences of living with AMD has been conducted independently with small sample sizes and has failed to impact on practice. Meta-synthesis of qualitative research can improve the understanding of the experience of living with AMD by drawing together findings of qualitative studies. This article presents a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies investigating the experience of AMD (literature searched up to April 2012; published studies identified range from 1996 to 2009). The review highlights themes relating to: functional limitations, adaptation and independence; feelings about the future with vision impairment; interaction with the health service; social engagement; disclosure; and the emotional impacts of living with AMD. Attention to the experience of living with AMD can help us to better understand the needs of patients. This meta-synthesis aimed to bring together the findings of qualitative research studies and highlights important areas for consideration when caring for patients with AMD. Our findings suggest that a holistic approach to service provision and support for AMD is needed which takes into account individuals' needs and experiences when coping with and adjusting to living with AMD. This support should aim to reduce stigma, increase social engagement, and develop the psychological resources of patients with AMD.

Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies

Background Qualitative research makes an important contribution to our understanding of health and healthcare. However, qualitative evidence can be difficult to search for and identify, and the effectiveness of different types of search strategies is unknown. Methods Three search strategies for qualitative research in the example area of support for breast-feeding were evaluated using six electronic bibliographic databases. The strategies were based on using thesaurus terms, free-text terms and broad-based terms. These strategies were combined with recognised search terms for support for breast-feeding previously used in a Cochrane review. For each strategy, we evaluated the recall (potentially relevant records found) and precision (actually relevant records found). Results A total yield of 7420 potentially relevant records was retrieved by the three strategies combined. Of these, 262 were judged relevant. Using one strategy alone would miss relevant records. The broad-based strategy had the highest recall and the thesaurus strategy the highest precision. Precision was generally poor: 96% of records initially identified as potentially relevant were deemed irrelevant. Searching for qualitative research involves trade-offs between recall and precision. Conclusions These findings confirm that strategies that attempt to maximise the number of potentially relevant records found are likely to result in a large number of false positives. The findings also suggest that a range of search terms is required to optimise searching for qualitative evidence. This underlines the problems of current methods for indexing qualitative research in bibliographic databases and indicates where improvements need to be made.

The experiences of con sultations on oral anticoagula-tion for AF:the importance of qualitative research incardiovascular sciences

Objectives: Multiple-perspective qualitative designs can aid researchersto develop a more multifaceted account of a phenomenon and as aform of triangulation of data. Two interlinking studies aimed toexplore patients’ and physicians’ experiences of atrial fibrillation (AF)and warfarin.Methods: Audio-recorded semistructured individual interviews wereused. Study 1: Three AF patient subgroups were interviewed (n = 11);accepted, refused, or discontinued warfarin. Study 2: Four physiciansubgroups (n = 16): consultant cardiologists, consultant general physi-cians, general practitioners, and cardiology registrars. Data was ana-lyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis, a qualitativemethodology.Results: Study 1: Three overarching themes comprised patients’ experi-ences: the initial consultation, life after the consultation, and patients’reflections. Patients commented on the reassurance experienced duringthe consultation, but they perceived the decision-making processmostly led by the physician. Lack of education and take-home materi-als during the initial consultation were highlighted. Patients’ uptake ofinformation was influenced by past experiences and knowledge ofstroke and/or bleeding. Study 2: Two overarching themes covered phy-sicians’ experiences: communicating information and challenges withwarfarin prescription for AF. Physicians’ approach to the consultationstyle shifted through a continuum of compliance-adherence-concor-dance during the consultation. Time and the perceived patient trust inthem as the expert led to physicians to adopt a paternalistic approach.Guideline adherence and the need to adopt a multidisciplinaryapproach were pointed out as current challenges.Conclusion: There is a need to target patients’ and physicians’ abilityto communicate with each other in a comprehensible way. This projecthas illustrated the benefit of using a qualitative approach to under-stand the lived experience of the physician–patient consultation.Disclosure of Interest: None declare

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

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. © 2013 Gale et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Journey making group workshops as a research tool

Problem-structuring group workshops can be used in organizations as a consulting tool and as a research tool. One example of the latter is using a problem-structuring method (PSM) to help a group tackle an organizational issue; meanwhile, researchers collect the participants' initial views, discussion of divergent views, the negotiated agreement, and the reasoning for outcomes emerging. Technology can help by supporting participants in freely sharing their opinions and by logging data for post-workshop analyses. For example, computers let participants share views anonymously and without being influenced by others (as well as logging those views), and video-cameras can record discussions and intra-group dynamics. This paper evaluates whether technology-supported Journey Making workshops can be effective research tools that can capture quality research data when compared against theoretical performance benchmarks and other qualitative research tools. © 2006 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved.

Embedding reflexivity within experiential qualitative psychology

In this article, it is argued that reflexivity is integral to experiential qualitative research in psychology. Reflexivity has been defined in many ways. Woolgar’s continuum of reflexivity though provides a useful gauge by which to judge whether a researcher is involved in simple reflection or reflexivity. The article demonstrates the benefits of adopting a reflexive attitude by presenting “challenge-to-competency.” The author’s encounter with Sarah will help illustrate the role of reflexivity both in data generation and in interpretative analysis. To close, it is proposed that reflexivity as hermeneutic reflection, with its grounding in hermeneutics and phenomenology, is a useful construct for guiding our engagement in reflexivity in experiential qualitative research.

Qualitative psychology at M level: a dialogue between learner and teacher

There are now more postgraduate programmes that include qualitative methods in psychology than ever before. This poses problems for teaching qualitative methods at M level because we still lack consistency in what qualitative methods are taught at the undergraduate level. Although the British Psychological Society requires accredited undergraduate programmes to include qualitative methods, we hear very different stories from colleagues across the UK about provision and quality. In this article, we present a dialogue between learner and teacher about our own experiences of qualitative methods in psychology at M level. We report our own learning experiences of qualitative methods at the undergraduate level, reflect on current methods of teaching at M level, and consider ways of moving forward. As well as focusing specifically on current practice at our institution, our discussions also branch out into wider issues around the fundamental characteristics of qualitative methods, pragmatically and philosophically, as well as our own accounts of what we enjoy most about using qualitative methods in psychology.

Shifting accountability:a longitudinal qualitative study of diabetes causation accounts

We undertook a longitudinal qualitative study involving of 20 patients from Scotland who had type 2 diabetes. We looked at their perceptions and understandings of why they had developed diabetes and how, and why, their causation accounts had changed or remained stable over time. Respondents, all of whom were white, were interviewed four times over a 4-year period (at baseline, 6, 12 and 48 months). Their causation accounts often shifted, sometimes subtly, sometimes radically, over the 4 years. The experiential dimensions of living with, observing, and managing their disease over time were central to understanding the continuities and changes we observed. We also highlight how, through a process of removing, adding and/or de-emphasising explanatory factors, causation accounts could be used as “resources” to justify or enable present treatment choices. We use our work to support critiques of social cognition theories, with their emphasis upon beliefs being antecedent to behaviours. We also provide reflections upon the implications of our findings for qualitative research designs and sampling strategies.