Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences

Eakin, Joan M., Mykhalovskiy, Eric·2003·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article, we explore the form of evaluation put forward by guidelines used in the health sciences for appraising qualitative research and we begin to articulate an alternative posture. Most guidelines are derivative of the modes of assessment developed by clinical epidemiologists as part of the promotion of evidence‐based medicine (EBM). They are predominantly proceduralist in orientation, equating quality with the proper execution of research techniques. We argue that this form of judgment assumes a fixed relationship between research practice and knowledge generated, and tends to over‐simplify and standardize the complex and non‐formulaic nature of qualitative inquiry. A concern with methods as objects of judgment in and of themselves restricts the reader's field of vision to the research process and diverts attention away from the analytic content of the research. We propose an alternative ‘substantive’ perspective that focuses on the analysis put forward, and regards methods as resources for engaging with and understanding the substantive findings and topic of inquiry. An important challenge is to find a way to embody such a form of judgment in practical assessment tools.

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x

Cites

50 of 50 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

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Eakin, J. M., & Mykhalovskiy, E.
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-05
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
187-194
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x
OpenAlex
W2113421809
Cited by
287
References
50
FWCI
44.47
Type
journal article
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: Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x
The paper
Eakin, J. M., & Mykhalovskiy, E. (2003). Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x

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.