The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Characteristics of Qualitative Descriptive Studies: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
Qualitative description (QD) is a term that is widely used to describe qualitative studies of health care and nursing‐related phenomena. However, limited discussions regarding QD are found in the existing literature. In this systematic review, we identified characteristics of methods and findings reported in research articles published in 2014 whose authors identified the work as QD. After searching and screening, data were extracted from the sample of 55 QD articles and examined to characterize research objectives, design justification, theoretical/philosophical frameworks, sampling and sample size, data collection and sources, data analysis, and presentation of findings. In this review, three primary findings were identified. First, although there were some inconsistencies, most articles included characteristics consistent with the limited available QD definitions and descriptions. Next, flexibility or variability of methods was common and effective for obtaining rich data and achieving understanding of a phenomenon. Finally, justification for how a QD approach was chosen and why it would be an appropriate fit for a particular study was limited in the sample and, therefore, in need of increased attention. Based on these findings, recommendations include encouragement to researchers to provide as many details as possible regarding the methods of their QD studies so that readers can determine whether the methods used were reasonable and effective in producing useful findings. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781452230153 · Cited by 12,136
Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/bf00988593 · Cited by 11,133
What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited
Sandelowski, M. (2010) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20362 · Cited by 4,975
Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6996.42 · Cited by 2,336
Cited by
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2022.2161594 · Cited by 582
“Roughly half of the reviewed papers didn ’ t provide any rationale for the use of TA (see also Kim et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialChallenges and opportunities for artificial intelligence in auditing: Evidence from the field
Kokina, J., Blanchette, S., Davenport, T. H., & Pachamanova, D. (2025) · International Journal of Accounting Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2025.100734 · Cited by 375
Mascaro, J. S., Florian, M. P., Ash, M. J., Palmer, P. K., Frazier, T., Condon, P., & Raison, C. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.547241 · Cited by 118
Schwartz, J. M., George, M., Rossetti, S. C., Dykes, P. C., Minshall, S. R., Lucas, E., & Cato, K. D. (2022) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/33960 · Cited by 88
“Qualitative descriptive methodology guided our methods [18,19], which included directed deductive and inductive content analysis of interview data [20].”
MethodDeeley, S. J., Fischbacher-Smith, M., Karadzhov, D., & Koristashevskaya, E. (2019) · Higher Education Pedagogies · doi:10.1080/23752696.2019.1644659 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C.
- Venue
- Research in Nursing & Health
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-09-30
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-42
- ISSN
- 0160-6891 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-240X
- OpenAlex
- W2528852890
- Cited by
- 2,243
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 21.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Characteristics of Qualitative Descriptive Studies: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/nur.21768
- The paper
- Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C. (2017). Characteristics of Qualitative Descriptive Studies: A Systematic Review. Research in Nursing & Health. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21768
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.