The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: Context, research questions and designs
Open accessAbstract
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By 'novice' we mean Master's students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. This second article addresses FAQs about context, research questions and designs. Qualitative research takes into account the natural contexts in which individuals or groups function to provide an in-depth understanding of real-world problems. The research questions are generally broad and open to unexpected findings. The choice of a qualitative design primarily depends on the nature of the research problem, the research question(s) and the scientific knowledge one seeks. Ethnography, phenomenology and grounded theory are considered to represent the 'big three' qualitative approaches. Theory guides the researcher through the research process by providing a 'lens' to look at the phenomenon under study. Since qualitative researchers and the participants of their studies interact in a social process, researchers influence the research process. The first article described the key features of qualitative research, the third article will focus on sampling, data collection and analysis, while the last article focuses on trustworthiness and publishing.
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
Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018) · European Journal of General Practice · doi:10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092 · Cited by 3,217
Self-citationBeyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732312452938 · Cited by 2,608
Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018) · European Journal of General Practice · doi:10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091 · Cited by 2,509
Self-citation
Cited by
Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018) · European Journal of General Practice · doi:10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092 · Cited by 3,217
Self-citationSeries: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018) · European Journal of General Practice · doi:10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091 · Cited by 2,509
Self-citationGuidance for publishing qualitative research in informatics
Ancker, J. S., Benda, N. C., Reddy, M., Unertl, K. M., & Veinot, T. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab195 · Cited by 82
Metadata
- Authors
- Korstjens, I., & Moser, A.
- Venue
- European Journal of General Practice
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-10-02
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 274-279
- ISSN
- 1381-4788 (ISSN-L)
- 1751-1402
- OpenAlex
- W2768388552
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 39.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: Context, research questions and designs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375090
- The paper
- Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2017). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: Context, research questions and designs. European Journal of General Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375090
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.