Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32148701›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine and community health2019

Fundamentals of qualitative analysis in family medicine.

Wayne A Babchuk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine and community health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Nurses' Insights and Experiences in Palliative Chemotherapy Care.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Human Milk for Vulnerable Infants: Breastfeeding and Milk Sharing Practice among Ghanaian Women.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Wayne A BabchukAnthropology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary purpose of this article is to provide family physician researchers interested in conducting a qualitative research study a concise guide to the analysis. Drawing from approaches outlined in popular research methodology textbooks and employing an exemplar from a minority health disparities research study, this article outlines specific steps useful for researchers and practitioners in the field of family medicine. This process of qualitative data analysis is situated within the larger framework of qualitative research to better position those new to qualitative designs to more effectively conduct their studies. A 10-step process useful for guiding qualitative data analysis is provided. The 10 steps include (1) assembling data for analysis, (2) refamiliarising oneself with the data, (3) open or initial coding procedures, (4) generating categories and assigning codes to them, (5) generating themes from categories, (6) strategies of validation, (7) interpreting and reporting findings from the participants, (8) interpreting and reporting findings from the literature, (9) visual representations of data and findings, and (10) strengths, limitations, delimitations and suggestions for future research. This work provides clear and accessible guidelines for conducting qualitative data analysis for emerging researchers that is applicable across a wide array of topics, disciplines and settings.

Indexed as

family medicinequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID32148701
PMCPMC6910734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.