Appraising the quality of qualitative research
Abstract
In the process of undertaking a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies of free-standing midwife-led units, the authors of this paper encountered a number of methodologically and epistemologically unresolved issues. One of these related to the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. In an iterative approach to scoping this issue, we identified eight existing checklists and summary frameworks. Some of these publications were opinion based, and some involved a synthesis of pre-existing frameworks. None of them provide a clear map of the criteria used in all their reviewed papers, and of the commonalities and differences between them. We critically review these frameworks and conclude that, although they are epistemologically and theoretically dense, they are excessively detailed for most uses. In order to reach a workable solution to the problem of the quality assessment of qualitative research, the findings from these frameworks and checklists were mapped together. Using a technique we have termed a 'redundancy approach' to eliminate non-essential criteria, we developed our own summary framework. The final synthesis was achieved through reflexive debate and discussion. Aspects of this discussion are detailed here. The synthesis is clearly rooted in a subjectivist epistemology, which views knowledge as constructed and hermeneutic in intent, encompassing individual, cultural and structural representations of reality.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many existing tools do not capture the multiple meanings of "good quality" and "rightness".
“Their use to determine the inclusion of qualitative studies is often not recommended as many existing tools do not capture the multiple meanings of “good quality” and “rightness”; therefore, studies should often not be excluded based on this quality assessment [22, 24].”
From Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare (2018) · cites this paper as [24]
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,636 · see citing works
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research
Mays, N. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 · Cited by 3,742 · see citing works
Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Barbour, R. S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115 · Cited by 2,613 · see citing works
Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x · Cited by 1,601 · see citing works
Strathern, M. (2019) · University of California Press (orig. 1988) · doi:10.1525/9780520910713 · Cited by 1,338 · see citing works
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
Murphy, Dingwall, Greatbatch, Parker, & Watson (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2160 · Cited by 1,107 · see citing works
Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research
Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001) · doi:10.4135/9781412985017 · Cited by 664 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As an example, Medline did not index the seminal journal, Qualitative Heath Research, until 1999 (Paterson et al., 2001), and the word ‘qualitative’ has only recently been added as a primary search term (Barroso et al.”
MethodThe Challenges of Searching for and Retrieving Qualitative Studies
Barroso, J., Gollop, C. J., Sandelowski, M., Meynell, J., Pearce, P. F., & Collins, L. J. (2003) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/0193945902250034 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., et al. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008 · Cited by 1,082 · see citing works
Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C. J., Gülmezoglu, M., Noyes, J., Booth, A., Garside, R., & Rashidian, A. (2015) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895 · Cited by 866 · see citing works
What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature
Davis, K., Drey, N., & Gould, D. (2009) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.010 · Cited by 855 · see citing works
Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool
Sirriyeh, R., Lawton, R., Gardner, P., & Armitage, G. (2012) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01662.x · Cited by 715 · see citing works
What matters to women during childbirth: A systematic qualitative review
Downe, S., Finlayson, K., Oladapo, O., Bonet, M., & Gülmezoglu, A. M. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194906 · Cited by 550 · see citing works
Self-citationLennox, L., Maher, L., & Reed, J. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0707-4 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-27 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Data collection and sampling in qualitative research: does size matter?
Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., & Hayter, M. (2014) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12163 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
What matters to women in the postnatal period: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies
Finlayson, K., Crossland, N., Bonet, M., & Downe, S. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231415 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
Self-citationWhat women value in the midwifery continuity of care model: a systematic review with meta-synthesis
Perriman, N., Davis, D. L., & Ferguson, S. (2018) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2018.04.011 · Cited by 258 · see citing works
A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed
Crowe, M., & Sheppard, L. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.008 · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Impact of early onset dementia on caregivers: a review
van Vliet, D., de Vugt, M. E., Bakker, C., Koopmans, R. T. C. M., & Verhey, F. R. J. (2010) · International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/gps.2439 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Beyond exploratory: a tailored framework for designing and assessing qualitative health research
Rendle, K. A., Abramson, C. M., Garrett, S. B., Halley, M. C., & Dohan, D. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030123 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Genter, C., Roberts, A., Richardson, J., & Sheaff, M. (2015) · British Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.1177/0308022615599408 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Heslehurst, N., Newham, J., Maniatopoulos, G., Fleetwood, C., Robalino, S., & Rankin, J. (2014) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.12160 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Balaam, M., Akerjordet, K., Lyberg, A., Kaiser, B., Schoening, E., Fredriksen, A., Ensel, A., Gouni, O., & Severinsson, E. (2013) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12139 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Mills, T., Ricklesford, C., Cooke, A., Heazell, A., Whitworth, M., & Lavender, T. (2014) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12656 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Bereaved parents’ experience of stillbirth in UK hospitals: a qualitative interview study
Downe, S., Schmidt, E., Kingdon, C., & Heazell, A. E. P. (2013) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002237 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Self-citationWomen׳s experiences of coping with pain during childbirth: A critical review of qualitative research
Van der Gucht, N., & Lewis, K. (2015) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2014.12.005 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Sclar, G. D., Penakalapati, G., Caruso, B. A., Rehfuess, E. A., Garn, J. V., Alexander, K. T., Freeman, M. C., Boisson, S., Medlicott, K., & Clasen, T. (2018) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.016 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2010) · Journal of Intellectual Disability Research · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01291.x · Cited by 102 · see citing works
A qualitative analysis of an advanced practice nurse-directed transitional care model intervention
Bradway, C., Trotta, R., Bixby, M. B., McPartland, E., Wollman, M. C., Kapustka, H., McCauley, K., & Naylor, M. D. (2012) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnr078 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Do women prefer caesarean sections? A qualitative evidence synthesis of their views and experiences
Colomar, M., Opiyo, N., Kingdon, C., Long, Q., Nion, S., Bohren, M. A., & Betran, A. P. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251072 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Krugu, J. K., Mevissen, F. E. F., Prinsen, A., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2016) · Reproductive Health · doi:10.1186/s12978-016-0161-9 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Merten, S., Martin Hilber, A., Biaggi, C., Secula, F., Bosch-Capblanch, X., Namgyal, P., & Hombach, J. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135222 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Wyatt, C., Harper, B., & Weatherhead, S. (2014) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503307.2013.864788 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Seed, T., Fox, J. R. E., & Berry, K. (2016) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.05.014 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Kingdon, C., Givens, J. L., O'Donnell, E., & Turner, M. (2015) · Birth · doi:10.1111/birt.12176 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Models of midwifery care for Indigenous women and babies: A meta-synthesis
Corcoran, P. M., Catling, C., & Homer, C. S. E. (2017) · Women and Birth · doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2016.08.003 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Kingdon, C., O’Donnell, E., Givens, J., & Turner, M. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130059 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Heys, S., Downe, S., & Thomson, G. (2021) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2021.103123 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Tenaw, L. A., Ngai, F. W., & Lam, K. (2024) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2024.104128 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Walsh, D., & Downe, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Lancashire (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Walsh, Denis
- Venue
- Midwifery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 108-119
- ISSN
- 0266-6138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1982334104
- Semantic Scholar
- 56748482b16c99bde5d9c2349e0cabdf99e7e7c1
- Cited by
- 523
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 20.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Midwifery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- hermeneutics, midwife-led units, meta-synthesis, reflexivity
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Nursing Theory, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Nursing Research, Nursing Methodology Research, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Qualitative Research
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
