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.

[1]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Data feedback efforts in quality improvement: lessons learned from US hospitals , 2004, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[2]  K. Taxis,et al.  Causes of intravenous medication errors: an ethnographic study , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

[3]  Jenny Donovan,et al.  Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[4]  Lucy Dillon,et al.  Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. A quality framework. , 2003 .

[5]  C. Pope,et al.  Qualitative methods in research on healthcare quality , 2002, Quality & safety in health care.

[6]  C. Seale Quality Issues in Qualitative Inquiry , 2002 .

[7]  M Dixon-Woods,et al.  Qualitative research in systematic reviews , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Sally Thorne,et al.  Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research: A Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis , 2001 .

[9]  Rosaline S Barbour,et al.  Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  L. Yardley Dilemmas in qualitative health research , 2000 .

[11]  A. Chapple,et al.  Explicit guidelines for qualitative research: a step in the right direction, a defence of the 'soft' option, or a form of sociological imperialism? , 1998, Family practice.

[12]  J. Popay,et al.  Rationale and Standards for the Systematic Review of Qualitative Literature in Health Services Research , 1998, Qualitative health research.

[13]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[14]  D. Silverman,et al.  Ensuring rigour in qualitative research , 1997 .

[15]  Thomas A. Schwandt Farewell to Criteriology , 1996 .

[16]  R. Morrison Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods , 1994 .

[17]  A. Kuzel,et al.  On the Idea of What Constitutes Good Qualitative Inquiry , 1992 .

[18]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. , 1992, British journal of psychology.

[19]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .