Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24926897›Full record

ReviewJournal of health care chaplaincy2014

Overview of qualitative research.

Daniel H Grossoehme

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of health care chaplaincy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04381260 (RUral dispaRities in prehospitAL STEMI), which is not on this map. Cited by 88 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT04381260 completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

RUral dispaRities in prehospitAL STEMI

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2020 to 2022Enrolled473ConditionsST Elevation Myocardial Infarction, Cardiovascular DiseasesArmsNo intervention, Interview, Survey
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 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

1 author.

Daniel H Grossoehmea Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Pastoral Care , Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA.

Funding

Parental adherence to CF homecare: research chaplaincy career commitmentK23HD062642 · NICHD · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI GROSSOEHME, DANIEL HUCK · 2010 to 2014
$549k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD062642
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Qualitative research methods are a robust tool for chaplaincy research questions. Similar to much of chaplaincy clinical care, qualitative research generally works with written texts, often transcriptions of individual interviews or focus group conversations and seeks to understand the meaning of experience in a study sample. This article describes three common methodologies: ethnography, grounded theory, and phenomenology. Issues to consider relating to the study sample, design, and analysis are discussed. Enhancing the validity of the data, as well reliability and ethical issues in qualitative research are described. Qualitative research is an accessible way for chaplains to contribute new knowledge about the sacred dimension of people's lived experience.

Indexed as

Chaplaincy Service, HospitalQualitative ResearchResearch DesignAnthropology, CulturalHumansModels, TheoreticalPhilosophyReproducibility of Resultschaplaincyethnographygrounded theoryphenomenologyqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID24926897
PMCPMC4609437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.