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

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine A Rendle ◽  
Corey M Abramson ◽  
Sarah B Garrett ◽  
Meghan C Halley ◽  
Daniel Dohan
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Qualitative Approaches ◽  
Guidelines And Standards ◽  
Applied Health Research

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.

Introducing the First Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janice M. Morse
Keyword(s):  
International Collaboration ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Theory Development ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Qualitative Theory ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Incremental Development ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Qualitative Approaches

In this plenary address, I introduce the Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research, its purpose, and its role internationally. Within this context, I explore the origins and development of qualitative health research, the content of qualitative health research, its components, and its contribution to health research. I argue that qualitative inquiry develops in levels, building from exploration and description of phenomena to the identification of concepts, the theoretical basis for quantitative inquiry, qualitative theory development, and to utilization, implementation, and evaluation. This incremental development is not purposefully planned, but occurs as a result of voluminous inquiry into similar topics using different qualitative approaches and designs. A single study rarely makes a breakthrough; rather, we must recognize the conglomerate of qualitative studies that give it validity and strength. The Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research will provide a forum for international collaboration for the development of qualitative health research.

scholarly journals The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: a qualitative study

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pooja Saini ◽  
Shaima M. Hassan ◽  
Esmaeil Khedmati Morasae ◽  
Mark Goodall ◽  
Clarissa Giebel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Services Research ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Services Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Applied Health Research ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Public And Patient Involvement

Abstract Background Public and Patient Involvement, Engagement and Participation research encompasses working with patients/service users (people with a medical condition receiving health service treatment), public members, caregivers and communities (who use services or care for patients). The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care [NIHR CLAHRC] NWC to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people’s health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. This paper seeks to explore an approach developed for involving the public as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and how change occurred within the organisations following their involvement. Methods A qualitative approach using focus group discussions was adopted to explore the experiences of two cohorts of participants involved in PPP project teams. Focus groups were held with public advisors (n = 9), interns (n = 9; staff or public who received a funded internship for a PPP project), NHS and Local Authority initiative leads (n = 10), and academic facilitators (n = 14). These were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. Results Thirty-two public advisors were recruited to support 25 PPP projects across the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and CLAHRC North West Coast [NWC] partner organisations. Three inter-related themes were conceptualised: 1)“Where it all started - involving public advisors” identified the varying journeys to recruitment and experiences of becoming a public advisor; 2)“Steps toward active involvement and engagement” related to public advisors becoming core team members; and 3) “Collaborative working to enhance public and patient involvement” relayed how projects identified the benefits of working jointly with the public advisors, particularly for those who had not experienced this style of working before. Conclusions The findings indicate that the PPP model is effective for embedding Public and Patient Involvement [PPI] within health services research, and recommends that PPI is integrated at the earliest opportunity within research projects and service evaluations through the use of support-led and facilitative programmes.

scholarly journals Interdisciplinarity in medical education research: myth and reality

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 1243-1253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Albert ◽  
Paula Rowland ◽  
Farah Friesen ◽  
Suzanne Laberge
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Field ◽  
The Other ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Common View ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Interdisciplinary Field ◽  
Sources Of Knowledge ◽  
Applied Health Research

AbstractThe medical education (Med Ed) research community characterises itself as drawing on the insights, methods, and knowledge from multiple disciplines and research domains (e.g. Sociology, Anthropology, Education, Humanities, Psychology). This common view of Med Ed research is echoed and reinforced by the narrative used by leading Med Ed departments and research centres to describe their activities as “interdisciplinary.” Bibliometrics offers an effective method of investigating scholarly communication to determine what knowledge is valued, recognized, and utilized. By empirically examining whether knowledge production in Med Ed research draws from multiple disciplines and research areas, or whether it primarily draws on the knowledge generated internally within the field of Med Ed, this article explores whether the characterisation of Med Ed research as interdisciplinary is substantiated. A citation analysis of 1412 references from research articles published in 2017 in the top five Med Ed journals was undertaken. A typology of six knowledge clusters was inductively developed. Findings show that the field of Med Ed research draws predominantly from two knowledge clusters: the Applied Health Research cluster (made of clinical and health services research), which represents 41% of the references, and the Med Ed research cluster, which represents 40% of the references. These two clusters cover 81% of all references in our sample, leaving 19% distributed among the other knowledge clusters (i.e., Education, disciplinary, interdisciplinary and topic centered research). The quasi-hegemonic position held by the Applied Health and Med Ed research clusters confines the other sources of knowledge to a peripheral role within the Med Ed research field. Our findings suggest that the assumption that Med Ed research is an interdisciplinary field is not convincingly supported by empirical data and that the knowledge entering Med Ed comes mostly from the health research domain.

scholarly journals Levels of research evidence in health policy assessment in Malawi

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-250
Author(s):  
Patrick Mapulanga ◽  
Jaya Raju ◽  
Thomas Matingwina
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Health Policies ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policy Systems

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi. Design/methodology/approach The study selected a typology of health policies in Malawi from 2002 to 2017. The study adopted the SPIRIT conceptual framework and assessed the levels of research evidence in health policy, systems and services research using the revised SAGE policy assessment tool. Documentary analysis was used to assess levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi. Findings In 29 (96.7 per cent) of the health policies, policy formulators including healthcare directors and managers used generic search engines such as Google or Google Scholar to look for heath research evidence. In 28 (93.3 per cent) of the health policies, they searched for grey literature and other government documents. In only 6 (20 per cent) of the heath policy documents, they used academic literature in a form of journal articles and randomised controlled trials. No systematic reviews or policy briefs were consulted. Overall, in 23 (76.7 per cent) of the health policy documents, health research evidence played a minimal role and had very little influence on the policy documents or decision-making. Research limitations/implications The empirical evidence in the health policy documents are limited because of insufficient research citation, low retrievability of health research evidence in the policy documents and biased selectivity of what constitutes health research evidence. Practical implications The study indicates that unfiltered information (data from policy evaluations and registries) constitutes majority of the research evidence in health policies both in health policy, systems and services research. The study seeks to advocate for the use of filtered information (peer reviewed, clinical trials and data from systematic reviews) in formulating health policies. Originality/value There is dearth of literature on the levels of health research evidence in health policy-making both in health policy, systems and services research. This study seeks to bridge the gap with empirical evidence from a developing country perspective.

scholarly journals Interventions to optimize medication use in nursing homes: a narrative review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Spinewine ◽  
Perrine Evrard ◽  
Carmel Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Adverse Drug Events ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Medication Use ◽  
Nursing Home Residents ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Specific Medication

Abstract Purpose Polypharmacy, medication errors and adverse drug events are frequent among nursing home residents. Errors can occur at any step of the medication use process. We aimed to review interventions aiming at optimization of any step of medication use in nursing homes. Methods We narratively reviewed quantitative as well as qualitative studies, observational and experimental studies that described interventions, their effects as well as barriers and enablers to implementation. We prioritized recent studies with relevant findings for the European setting. Results Many interventions led to improvements in medication use. However, because of outcome heterogeneity, comparison between interventions was difficult. Prescribing was the most studied aspect of medication use. At the micro-level, medication review, multidisciplinary work, and more recently, patient-centered care components dominated. At the macro-level, guidelines and legislation, mainly for specific medication classes (e.g., antipsychotics) were employed. Utilization of technology also helped improve medication administration. Several barriers and enablers were reported, at individual, organizational, and system levels. Conclusion Overall, existing interventions are effective in optimizing medication use. However there is a need for further European well-designed and large-scale evaluations of under-researched intervention components (e.g., health information technology, patient-centered approaches), specific medication classes (e.g., antithrombotic agents), and interventions targeting medication use aspects other than prescribing (e.g., monitoring). Further development and uptake of core outcome sets is required. Finally, qualitative studies on barriers and enablers for intervention implementation would enable theory-driven intervention design.

scholarly journals Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 384-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Ring ◽  
Ruth Jepson ◽  
Karen Ritchie
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Patient Centeredness ◽  
Summary Table ◽  
Thematic Synthesis

Objectives: Synthesizing qualitative research is an important means of ensuring the needs, preferences, and experiences of patients are taken into account by service providers and policy makers, but the range of methods available can appear confusing. This study presents the methods for synthesizing qualitative research most used in health research to-date and, specifically those with a potential role in health technology assessment.Methods: To identify reviews conducted using the eight main methods for synthesizing qualitative studies, nine electronic databases were searched using key terms including meta-ethnography and synthesis. A summary table groups the identified reviews by their use of the eight methods, highlighting the methods used most generally and specifically in relation to health technology assessment topics.Results: Although there is debate about how best to identify and quality appraise qualitative research for synthesis, 107 reviews were identified using one of the eight main methods. Four methods (meta-ethnography, meta-study, meta-summary, and thematic synthesis) have been most widely used and have a role within health technology assessment. Meta-ethnography is the leading method for synthesizing qualitative health research. Thematic synthesis is also useful for integrating qualitative and quantitative findings. Four other methods (critical interpretive synthesis, grounded theory synthesis, meta-interpretation, and cross-case analysis) have been under-used in health research and their potential in health technology assessments is currently under-developed.Conclusions: Synthesizing individual qualitative studies has becoming increasingly common in recent years. Although this is still an emerging research discipline such an approach is one means of promoting the patient-centeredness of health technology assessments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document