Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18626033›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine

Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations.

Deborah J Cohen, Benjamin F Crabtree

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04870307 (Community-engaged Approaches to Testing in Community and Healthcare Settings for Underserved Populations), which is not on this map. Cited by 238 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
238citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04870307 nacompletednot on this map

Community-engaged Approaches to Testing in Community and Healthcare Settings for Underserved Populations

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OklahomaRan2020 to 2023Enrolled323ConditionsCovid19ArmsDissemination and Implementation Research
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

238 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Psychosocial Benefits of Cooking Interventions: A Systematic Review.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

178 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Deborah J CohenDepartment of Family Medicine, Research Division, University of Medicine and Dentistry, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, New Jersey 08873, USA. cohendj@umdnj.edu
Benjamin F Crabtree

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe wanted to review and synthesize published criteria for good qualitative research and develop a cogent set of evaluative criteria.

methodsWe identified published journal articles discussing criteria for rigorous research using standard search strategies then examined reference sections of relevant journal articles to identify books and book chapters on this topic. A cross-publication content analysis allowed us to identify criteria and understand the beliefs that shape them.

resultsSeven criteria for good qualitative research emerged: (1) carrying out ethical research; (2) importance of the research; (3) clarity and coherence of the research report; (4) use of appropriate and rigorous methods; (5) importance of reflexivity or attending to researcher bias; (6) importance of establishing validity or credibility; and (7) importance of verification or reliability. General agreement was observed across publications on the first 4 quality dimensions. On the last 3, important divergent perspectives were observed in how these criteria should be applied to qualitative research, with differences based on the paradigm embraced by the authors.

conclusionQualitative research is not a unified field. Most manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts and are likely to embrace a generic set of criteria rather than those relevant to the particular qualitative approach proposed or reported. Reviewers and researchers need to be aware of this tendency and educate health care researchers about the criteria appropriate for evaluating qualitative research from within the theoretical and methodological framework from which it emerges.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchEthics, ResearchHealth Services ResearchHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID18626033
PMCPMC2478498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.