ArticleJournal of health psychology2024
The challenges of open data sharing for qualitative researchers.
Article in Journal of health psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- When I say … informed consent.Medical education · 2026Article
- Supporting the psychosocial well-being of patients with Long COVID: patient-informed strategies from a qualitative study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- What is critical metascience and why is it important?Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- The advocacy effect: a grounded theory study on the inclusion of caregivers or nearest support persons in research to better understand patient outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Celebrating qualitative research.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Developing a Data Note reporting guideline for qualitative health and social care research datasets (the DeNOTE study): A study protocol.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Open science practices among early-career human-computer interaction researchers in the US.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
'Open Science' advocates for open access to scientific research, as well as sharing data, analysis plans and code in order to enable replication of results. However, these requirements typically fail to account for methodological differences between quantitative and qualitative research, and serious ethical problems are raised by the suggestion that full qualitative datasets can or should be published alongside qualitative research papers. Aside from important ethical concerns, the idea of sharing qualitative data in order to enable replication is conceptually at odds with the underpinnings on most qualitative methodologies, which highlight the importance of the unique interpretative function of the researcher. The question of whether secondary analysis of qualitative data is acceptable is key, and in this commentary we argue that there are good conceptual, ethical and economic reasons to consider how funders, researchers and publishers can make better use of existing data.
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.