Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36182899›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Qualitative longitudinal research in health research: a method study.

Åsa Audulv, Elisabeth O C Hall, Åsa Kneck, Thomas Westergren, Liv Fegran, Mona Kyndi Pedersen, Hanne Aagaard, Kristianna Lund Dam, Mette Spliid Ludvigsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
29.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. "It's just us": Families' experiences with temporary tube feeding.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026
    Article

3 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Åsa AudulvDepartment of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. asa.audulv@umu.se.
Elisabeth O C HallFaculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Åsa KneckDepartment of Health Care Sciences, Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College, Stockholm, Sweden.
Thomas WestergrenDepartment of Health and Nursing Science, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Liv FegranDepartment of Health and Nursing Science, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Mona Kyndi PedersenCenter for Clinical Research, North Denmark Regional Hospital, Hjørring, Denmark.
Hanne AagaardLovisenberg Diaconale Univeristy of College, Oslo, Norway.
Kristianna Lund DamFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Faroe Islands, Thorshavn, Faroe Islands, Denmark.
Mette Spliid LudvigsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine-Randers Regional Hospital, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKUniversity of Agder · NOLovisenberg Diakonale Høgskole · NOMarie Cederschiöld University · SENorth Denmark Region · DKUmeå University · SEUniversity of the Faroe Islands · FO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQualitative longitudinal research (QLR) comprises qualitative studies, with repeated data collection, that focus on the temporality (e.g., time and change) of a phenomenon. The use of QLR is increasing in health research since many topics within health involve change (e.g., progressive illness, rehabilitation). A method study can provide an insightful understanding of the use, trends and variations within this approach. The aim of this study was to map how QLR articles within the existing health research literature are designed to capture aspects of time and/or change.

methodsThis method study used an adapted scoping review design. Articles were eligible if they were written in English, published between 2017 and 2019, and reported results from qualitative data collected at different time points/time waves with the same sample or in the same setting. Articles were identified using EBSCOhost. Two independent reviewers performed the screening, selection and charting.

resultsA total of 299 articles were included. There was great variation among the articles in the use of methodological traditions, type of data, length of data collection, and components of longitudinal data collection. However, the majority of articles represented large studies and were based on individual interview data. Approximately half of the articles self-identified as QLR studies or as following a QLR design, although slightly less than 20% of them included QLR method literature in their method sections.

conclusionsQLR is often used in large complex studies. Some articles were thoroughly designed to capture time/change throughout the methodology, aim and data collection, while other articles included few elements of QLR. Longitudinal data collection includes several components, such as what entities are followed across time, the tempo of data collection, and to what extent the data collection is preplanned or adapted across time. Therefore, there are several practices and possibilities researchers should consider before starting a QLR project.

Indexed as

Research DesignHumansLongitudinal StudiesQualitative ResearchMethod developmentQualitative longitudinal researchRepeated data collection

Identifiers

PMID36182899
PMCPMC9526289
OpenAlexW4298620994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.