Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research.

By N. Mays, C. Pope. British medical journal, 2000

931 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f037336dadbd1d516b1d5b032e392638f2ae76e1

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ (2012, methodology): “11 Appraisal items State the tools, frameworks and criteria used to appraise the studies or selected findings (e.g. Existing tools: CASP, QARI, COREQ, Mays and Pope [25]; reviewer developed tools; describe the domains assessed: research team, study design, data analysis and interpretations, reportin”
Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners (2009, unknown): “Focus groups have proven to be a useful method of providing indepth information and exploring cognitions and motivations underlying behaviour [22-25].”
Understanding participation in sport and physical activity among children and adults: a review of qualitative studies. (2006, background): “Although we did find >20 studies, few studies met the basic qualitative research quality criteria of reporting a theoretical framework [45].”
Patient Adherence to Tuberculosis Treatment: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research (2007, methodology): “Quality Assessment We decided to assess the quality of individual studies using a checklist based on common elements from existing criteria for qualitative study quality assessment [10,14–17] (Table 1).”
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. (2007, unknown): “[26] [27] [6] [28] b [32] [13] [15] [14] [17] [33] [34] [35] [16] [19] [36] [7] [37] [23] [38] [39] [22] BMJ”
Fathers' experiences of their transition to fatherhood: a metasynthesis (2011, background): “The application of quality criteria to assess the credibility of qualitative research is widely debated (Mays & Pope, 2000 ) and a similar debate is evident in relation to meta‐synthesis research (Walsh & Downe, 2005 ).”
The Experiences of Late-diagnosed Women with Autism Spectrum Conditions: An Investigation of the Female Autism Phenotype (2016, methodology): “We adhered to guidelines for good practice in qualitative research (Mays and Pope 2000; Pope et al. 2000; Stiles 1999) by conducting the following credibility checks, to ensure that interpretations of the data were sound and fair.”
The inclusion of bias in reflective and reflexive research (2005, background): “…it is not used to inform and conduct the study, but on the contrary, it is argued that it should be eliminated or bracketed so as to achieve the equivalent of validity and credibility of quantitative studies (Endacott, 1994; Mays and Pope, 2000; Whittemore et al., 2001; Moseley and Mead, 2004).”
A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. (2009, background): “Qualitative: In the 17 SMSRs, two references were frequently cited for appraising the quality of qualitative studies, and six similar characteristics were proposed in both references (Mays and Pope, 2000; Popay et al., 1998).”
What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. (2009, unknown): “…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).”
Feedback from research participants: are member checks useful in qualitative research? (2017, background): “Gathering additional information from participants is sometimes stated as a reason for using member checks (Bloor 1997; Bradbury-Jones, Irvine & Sambrook 2010; Guba & Lincoln 1989; Mays & Pope, 2000).”