Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,243

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 access
Kim, Hyejin, Sefcik, Justine S., Bradway, Christine·2017·Research in Nursing & Health

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/nur.21768

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 2,243

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.