ArticleGlobal qualitative nursing research
Developing a Feasible and Credible Method for Analyzing Healthcare Documents as Written Data.
Article in Global qualitative nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Policy Frameworks and Governance of Student Evaluation of Teaching in Nursing Education: Document Analysis.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Nutritional assessment and lifestyle counseling for pregnant women in primary health care units in Mexico: implementation evaluation.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Just-in-case medication use by ambulance paramedics responding to end-of-life care in the community: protocol for a multi-method study (RELIEF).British paramedic journal · 2025Article
- Variation in UK fracture liaison service consultation conduct and content before and during the COVID pandemic: results from the iFraP-D UK survey.Archives of osteoporosis · 2023Article
- Planned improvement actions based on patient safety incident reports in Estonian hospitals: a document analysis.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare provides a rich, and constantly increasing, number of written documents, which are underutilized in research data for health and nursing sciences, but previous literature has only provided limited guidance on the process of document analysis. The aim of this paper is to provide a methodological framework for analyzing health care documents as written data, based on a systematic methodological review and the research team's experience of the method. Based on the results, the methods consist of seven phases: (i) identify the purpose, (ii) determine the document selection strategy, (iii) select or design an extraction matrix, (iv) carry out pilot testing, (v) collect and analyze the data, (vi) consider the credibility, and (vii) ethics of the study. The framework that has been developed can be used to carry out document analysis studies that are both feasible and credible.
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.