The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process
Abstract
Qualitative content analysis and other 'standardised' methods are sometimes considered to be technical tools used for basic, superficial, and simple sorting of text, and their results lack depth, scientific rigour, and evidence. To strengthen the trustworthiness of qualitative content analyses, we focus on abstraction and interpretation during the analytic process. To our knowledge, descriptions of these concepts are sparse; this paper therefore aims to elaborate on and exemplify the distinction and relation between abstraction and interpretation during the different phases of the process of qualitative content analysis. We address the relations between abstraction and interpretation when selecting, condensing, and coding meaning units and creating categories and themes on various levels. The examples used are based on our experiences of teaching and supervising students at various levels. We also highlight the phases of de-contextualisation and re-contextualisation in describing the analytic process. We argue that qualitative content analysis can be both descriptive and interpretative. When the data allow interpretations of the latent content, qualitative content analysis reveals both depth and meaning in participants' utterances.
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
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
The qualitative content analysis process
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x · Cited by 22,617
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 · Cited by 20,772
Self-citationQualitative Content Analysis in Practice
Schreier, M. (2012) · doi:10.4135/9781529682571 · Cited by 5,801
What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited
Sandelowski, M. (2010) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20362 · Cited by 4,975
Cited by
Lyhne, C. N., Thisted, J., & Bjerrum, M. (2025) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-025-02220-9 · Cited by 53
Löfgren, U., Wälivaara, B.-M., Strömbäck, U., & Lindberg, B. (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103747 · Cited by 35
Lindkvist, R.-M., Westling, S., Eberhard, S., Johansson, B. A., Rask, O., & Landgren, K. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19010300 · Cited by 26
Tschamper, M. K., Larsen, M. H., Wahl, A. K., & Jakobsen, R. (2023) · Epilepsy & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2023.109222 · Cited by 22
PettyJohn, M. E., Cary, K. M., Nolen, E., & Gallegos, T. A. (2025) · The Journal of Sex Research · doi:10.1080/00224499.2024.2446643 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Lindgren, B.-M., Lundman, B., & Graneheim, U. H.
- Venue
- International Journal of Nursing Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 108
- Pages
- 103632
- ISSN
- 0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3024240210
- Cited by
- 1,414
- References
- 5
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632
- The paper
- Lindgren, B.-M., Lundman, B., & Graneheim, U. H. (2020). Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. International Journal of Nursing Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632
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.