ArticleScandinavian journal of public health2022
Developing and promoting qualitative methods in general practice research: Lessons learnt and strategies convened.
Article in Scandinavian journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multi-layered barrier to oral health: a mixed methods exploration of dental anxiety.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Between Public Guidelines for User Involvement and Ideals About Free Research: Using Collaborative Autoethnography to Explore Researcher Experiences From a User Involvement Process.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Comprehensive Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (CCQR): Reporting Guideline for Global Health Qualitative Research Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fifty years ago, qualitative research methods were unknown in medicine. Biomedicine and the positivist paradigm were universal academic standards. In the late 1980s, however, humanist perspectives emerged as substantial values in general practice. This progress fostered an effort among Nordic general practitioners to find research methods best suited to exploring clinical communication and the doctor-patient relationship. Simultaneously, qualitative methods were promoted internationally in medicine, mostly by social scientists. This article is a personal narrative of the history and impact of Nordic general practitioners customising qualitative methods for the study of clinical practice. I present lessons learnt and strategies convened in developing qualitative methods in this Nordic context. The patient-centred method paved the way for research standards consistent with our clinical ontology. We struggled to develop dialogues that promoted methodological legitimacy among medical colleagues. Methodological standards like rigour and reflexivity became important and contributed to intersubjectivity by sharing the research process. Gradually, our endeavours gained notice. In the last couple of decades, the number of published qualitative studies has increased, though perhaps at the cost of methodological quality. Indeed, there are also indications of a methodological backlash among influential journal editors. Nordic general practitioners have been prominent in developing qualitative methods suitable for cultivation of medical knowledge. Our position of knowing, close to the experiences of the individual patient and the everyday context, is different from that of a social scientist. It offers a unique point of departure for knowledge development that can make an important difference for both patients and doctors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.