Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative Research in Clinical Epidemiology

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Clinical Epidemiology

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 2249))

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of qualitative research approaches in the study of health, disease, and health service delivery and summarizes important considerations when designing research studies to address questions that ask the “how,” “why,” or “what” of a particular issue. As qualitative research encompasses distinct methodologies, brief descriptions of the main approaches and examples from the literature are provided. Guidance on how to evaluate quality in the design and reporting of qualitative studies is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2017) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 5th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  2. Zeliadt SB, Heffner JL, Sayre G et al (2015) Attitudes and perceptions about smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med 175(9):1530–1537. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Harris RP (2015) The psychological effects of lung cancer screening on heavy smokers: another reason for concern. JAMA Intern Med 175(9):1537–1538. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carter SM, Little M (2007) Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 17(10):1316–1328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307306927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  6. Paley J (2005) Error and objectivity: cognitive illusions and qualitative research. Nurs Philos 6(3):196–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2005.00217.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2018) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schick Makaroff K (2005) The experience of feeling understood for nurses with disabilities. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schick-Makaroff K (2006) So what? Suggestions for policy from a thesis on the lived experience of feeling understood. Variegations 3(1):9–18

    Google Scholar 

  10. Parse RR (1998) The human becoming school of thought: a perspective for nurses and other health professionals, 1st edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  11. Parse RR (2002) Transforming healthcare with a unitary view of the human. Nurs Sci Q 15(1):46–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/089431840201500108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Albright K, Gechter K, Kempe A (2013) Importance of mixed methods in pragmatic trials and dissemination and implementation research. Acad Pediatr 13(5):400–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2013.06.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheng KKF, Metcalfe A (2018) Qualitative methods and process evaluation in clinical trials context: where to head to? Int J Qual Meth 17(1):160940691877421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918774212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dew K (2007) A health researcher’s guide to qualitative methodologies. Aust N Z J Public Health 31(5):433–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00114.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ayres L, Kavanaugh K, Knafl KA (2003) Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qual Health Res 13(6):871–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303013006008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sandelowski M, Barroso J (2003) Classifying the findings in qualitative studies. Qual Health Res 13(7):905–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303253488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van Manen M (2017) But is it phenomenology? Qual Health Res 27(6):775–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317699570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O (2017) Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Glob Qual Nurs Res 4:2333393617742282. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393617742282

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Guy S, Sterling BS, Walker LO et al (2014) Mental health literacy and postpartum depression: a qualitative description of views of lower income women. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 28(4):256–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2014.04.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barbour RS (2008) Research design. In: Introducing qualitative research: a student’s guide to the craft of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp 35–65

    Google Scholar 

  21. Morse JM (2000) Determining sample size. Qual Health Res 10(1):3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cleary M, Horsfall J, Hayter M (2014) Data collection and sampling in qualitative research: does size matter? J Adv Nurs 70(3):473–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Morse JM (2015) Analytic strategies and sample size. Qual Health Res 25(10):1317–1318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315602867

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Reilly M, Parker N (2013) ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res 13(2):190–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Walker Taylor J (2012) The use of saturation in qualitative research. Can J Cardiovasc Nurs 22(2):37–46

    Google Scholar 

  26. Archibald M, Munce S (2015) Challenges and strategies in the recruitment of participants for qualitative research. Univ Alberta Health Sci J 11:34–37

    Google Scholar 

  27. Creswell JW (2012) Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, 4th edn. Pearson, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hanson CS, Ralph AF, Manera KE et al (2017) The lived experience of “being evaluated” for organ donation: focus groups with living kidney donors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 12(11):1852–1861. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.03550417

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Loiselle CG (2011) Canadian essentials of nursing research, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  30. Holm G (2014) Photography as a research method. In: Leavy P (ed) The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford Library of Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chuong KH, O’Doherty KC, Secko DM (2015) Media discourse on the social acceptability of fecal transplants. Qual Health Res 25(10):1359–1371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314568199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lian OS, Nettleton S (2015) “United we stand”: framing myalgic encephalomyelitis in a virtual symbolic community. Qual Health Res 25(10):1383–1394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314562893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kirova A (2012) Immigrant children’s bodily engagement in accessing their lived experiences of immigration. In: Friesen N, Henriksson C, Saevi T (eds) Hermeneutic phenomenology in education, Practice of Research Method, vol 4. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  34. Yi-Frazier JP, Cochrane K, Mitrovich C et al (2015) Using Instagram as a modified application of photovoice for storytelling and sharing in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Qual Health Res 25(10):1372–1382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315583282

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Faulkner SL (2007) Concern with craft—using ars poetica as criteria for reading research poetry. Qual Inq 13(2):218–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406295636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bruce A, Makaroff KL, Sheilds L et al (2013) Lessons learned about art-based approaches for disseminating knowledge. Nurse Res 21(1):23–28. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.09.21.1.23.e356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kitzinger J (1995) Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ 311(7000):299–302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Pozzar R, Stamp KD, Allen NA (2013) Using focus groups to inform innovative approaches to care. Am J Nurs 113(8):48–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Doody O, Slevin E, Taggart L (2013) Preparing for and conducting focus groups in nursing research: part 2. Br J Nurs 22(3):170–173. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2013.22.3.170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nelson P, Cox H, Furze G et al (2013) Participants’ experiences of care during a randomized controlled trial comparing a lay-facilitated angina management programme with usual care: a qualitative study using focus groups. J Adv Nurs 69(4):840–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06069.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Britten N (1995) Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 311(6999):251–253. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.6999.251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Whyte WF (1982) Interviewing in field research. In: Burgess RG (ed) Field research: a sourcebook and field manual. Routledge, London; New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  43. Field P, Morse JM (1989) Nursing research: the application of qualitative approaches. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  44. Grix J (2004) The foundations of research, Macmillan research skills, 1st edn. Red Globe Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  45. Patton MQ (1999) Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res 34(5 Pt 2):1189–1208

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ (2004) Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res 33(7):14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (2010) Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Morse JM (1994) “Emerging from the data”: the cognitive processes of analysis in qualitative inquiry. In: Morse JM (ed) Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 23–43

    Google Scholar 

  49. Elliott V (2018) Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. Qual Rep 23(11):2850–2861

    Google Scholar 

  50. Creswell JW, Creswell JW (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA

    Google Scholar 

  51. Morse JM (2008) Confusing categories and themes. Qual Health Res 18(6):727–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308314930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T (2013) Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 15(3):398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sandelowski M (2000) Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health 23(4):334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23:4<334::Aid-Nur9>3.0.Co;2-G

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Barber EA, Everard T, Holland AE et al (2015) Barriers and facilitators to early mobilisation in intensive care: a qualitative study. Aust Crit Care 28(4):177–182; quiz 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2014.11.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Thorne S, Kirkham SR, MacDonald-Emes J (1997) Interpretive description: a noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Health 20(2):169–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199704)20:2<169::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-i

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Mathison S (2005) Encyclopedia of evaluation. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Thorne S, Paterson B, Russell C (2003) The structure of everyday self-care decision making in chronic illness. Qual Health Res 13(10):1337–1352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303258039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Green J, Thorogood N (2018) Qualitative methods for health research. Introducing qualitative methods, 4th edn. Los Angeles, CA, Sage

    Google Scholar 

  60. Secunda K, Wirpsa MJ, Neely KJ et al (2019) Use and meaning of “goals of care” in the healthcare literature: a systematic review and qualitative discourse analysis. J Gen Intern Med 35:1559–1566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05446-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Glaser B (2007) Doing formal grounded theory: a proposal. In: Bryant A, Charmaz K (eds) The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Sage, Mill Valley, CA, p 656

    Google Scholar 

  62. Glaser B, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, 1st edn. Aldine, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pursley-Crotteau S, Bunting SM, Draucker CB (2001) Grounded theory and hermeneutics: contradictory or complementary methods of nursing research? In: Schreiber RS, Stern PN (eds) Using grounded theory in nursing. Springer Pub. Co., New York, NY, pp 191–209

    Google Scholar 

  64. Stern PN (2009) Glaserian grounded theory. In: Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke A (eds) Developing grounded theory, Developing qualitative inquiry, vol 2. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp 55–65

    Google Scholar 

  65. Charmaz K (2014) Constructing grounded theory, Introducing qualitative methods, 2nd edn. Sage, London; Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  66. Mills J, Francis K, Bonner A (2007) Live my work: rural nurses and their multiple perspectives of self. J Adv Nurs 59(6):583–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04350.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kar K, Lundstrom T, Adkins J (1997) Who will influence the institutionalisation of participation and on whose terms? Recent experiences in institutionalising participatory approaches in development from Lindi and Mtwara regions, Tanzania

    Google Scholar 

  68. Husserl E (1962) Ideas: general introduction to pure phenomenology, 1st edn. Collier Macmillan, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  69. Heidegger M (1962) Being and time. Harper, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  70. Heidegger M (1972) On time and being, 1st edn. Harper & Row, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  71. Leonard VW (1999) A Heideggerian phenomenologic perspective on the concept of the person. In: Polifroni EC, Welch M (eds) Perspectives on philosophy of science in nursing: an historical and contemporary anthology. Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA, pp 315–327

    Google Scholar 

  72. Farrell G, Comiskey C (2014) Dualities of living with HIV/HCV co-infection: patients’ perspectives from those who are ineligible for or nonresponsive to treatment. J Assoc Nurse Aids C 25(1):9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jana.2012.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Roberts T (2009) Understanding ethnography. Br J Midwifery 17(5):291–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Lillehagen I, Andersen MH, Urstad KH et al (2018) How does a new patient education programme for renal recipients become situated and adapted when implemented in the daily teaching practice in a university hospital? An ethnographic observation study. BMJ Open 8(11):e023005. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023005

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Bergold J, Thomas S (2012) Participatory research methods: a methodological approach in motion. Hist Soc Res 37(4):191–222

    Google Scholar 

  76. Breu K, Peppard J (2003) Useful knowledge for information systems practice: the contribution of the participatory paradigm. J Inform Technol 18(3):177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268396032000122141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Springett J, Wright M, Roche B (2011) Developing quality criteria for Participatory Health Research: an agenda for action. Paper presented at the WZB, Berlin Social Science Center

    Google Scholar 

  78. Josif C, Barclay L, Bar-Zeev S et al (2012) How participatory action research supported improvements to the postnatal discharge summary system used for remote dwelling aboriginal mothers and infants in the Top End of Australia. Action Res 10(4):387–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750312467832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Rolfe G (2006) Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. J Adv Nurs 53(3):304–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Morse JM (2015) Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health Res 25(9):1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Guba EG (1981) Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educ Commun Technol J 29(2):75–91

    Google Scholar 

  82. Sandelowski M (1993) Rigor or rigor-mortis—the problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Adv Nurs Sci 16(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19(6):349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist. Developed from: Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19(6):349–357. http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/ISSM_COREQ_Checklist.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  85. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  86. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA et al (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Admin Pol Ment Health 42(5):533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Patton MQ, Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Stephanie Thompson

  2. Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Kara Schick-Makaroff

Authors
  1. Stephanie Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kara Schick-Makaroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Thompson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Patrick S. Parfrey

  2. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Brendan J. Barrett

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this protocol

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this protocol

Thompson, S., Schick-Makaroff, K. (2021). Qualitative Research in Clinical Epidemiology. In: Parfrey, P.S., Barrett, B.J. (eds) Clinical Epidemiology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2249. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1138-8_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1138-8_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-1137-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-1138-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation