The problem of appraising qualitative research

By M. Dixon-Woods, Rachel L. Shaw, Shona Agarwal, Jonathan A. Smith. BMJ Quality & Safety, 2004

672 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/00ade148e11ef4211840b7d6ec91341177623888

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In General Health Professions

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual) (2015, background): “Such approaches need to be appropriate to, and take into account the diversity of, qualitative methods [27,37,39].”
What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. (2009, background): “…research, although the criteria to address the issue of rigour is judged differently (Mays et al., 2005), transparency, credibility, validity and relevance of findings that is grounded in the evidence, is equally applicable (Guba and Lincoln, 2005; Mays and Pope, 2000; Dixon-Woods et al., 2004).”
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. (2007, neutral): “[26] [27] [6] [28] b [32] [13] [15] [14] [17] [33] [34] [35] [16] [19] [36] [7] [37] [23] [38] [39] [22] BMJ”
How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective (2006, background): “There are now well over 100 sets of proposals on quality in qualitative research, some adopting nonreconcilable positions on a number of issues (Dixon-Woods et al., 2004).”
Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research (2015, background): “Various approaches have been suggested, the two leading schools of thoughts being the school of Dixon‑Woods et al.[8] which emphasizes on methodology, and that of Lincoln et al.[9] which stresses the rigor of interpretation of results.”
Patient Adherence to Tuberculosis Treatment: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research (2007, background): “Flexibility and choice in treatment, and options that maintain patient autonomy in treatment taking, appeared to run contrary to the traditional organisation of many TB services [6,10].”
Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis (2020, background): “Others have agreed ‘essential’ criteria that studies must meet,(17,42) assessed the descriptive ‘thinness’ and ‘thickness’ of evidence(43) and suggested establishing ‘fatal flaws’ in the design and conduct of qualitative research.(37) However, there is little academic consensus or empirical evidence”
Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool. (2012, background): “Prominent qualitative researchers have suggested that quality assessment using checklists is currently problematic because approaches tend to view qualitative inquiry monolithically, indicating that there are universal features that indicate good quality [13].”
Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature (2016, neutral): “12.”
Understanding Qualitative Metasynthesis (2011, methodology): “For example, Dixon-Woods et al. (2004) used prompts for appraising qualitative research such as “Are the research questions clear?””