• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of qualsafetyQuality and Safety in Health CareCurrent TOCInstructions for authors
Qual Saf Health Care. Jun 2004; 13(3): 223–225.
PMCID: PMC1743851

The problem of appraising qualitative research

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.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (54K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Pope C, van Royen P, Baker R. Qualitative methods in research on healthcare quality. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Jun;11(2):148–152. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Taxis K, Barber N. Causes of intravenous medication errors: an ethnographic study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Oct;12(5):343–347. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Bradley EH, Holmboe ES, Mattera JA, Roumanis SA, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM. Data feedback efforts in quality improvement: lessons learned from US hospitals. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Feb;13(1):26–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res. 1998 May;8(3):341–351. [PubMed]
  • Henwood KL, Pidgeon NF. Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. Br J Psychol. 1992 Feb;83(Pt 1):97–111. [PubMed]
  • Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R. Qualitative research in systematic reviews. Has established a place for itself. BMJ. 2001 Oct 6;323(7316):765–766. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Campbell Rona, Pound Pandora, Pope Catherine, Britten Nicky, Pill Roisin, Morgan Myfanwy, Donovan Jenny. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003 Feb;56(4):671–684. [PubMed]
  • Chapple A, Rogers A. Explicit guidelines for qualitative research: a step in the right direction, a defence of the 'soft' option, or a form of sociological imperialism? Fam Pract. 1998 Dec;15(6):556–561. [PubMed]
  • Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001 May 5;322(7294):1115–1117. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Quality & Safety in Health Care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • MedGen
    MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...