The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Qualitative research and evidence based medicine
Open accessAbstract
Qualitative research may seem unscientific and anecdotal to many medical scientists. However, as the critics of evidence based medicine are quick to point out, medicine itself is more than the application of scientific rules.1 Clinical experience, based on personal observation, reflection, and judgment, is also needed to translate scientific results into treatment of individual patients.2 Personal experience is often characterised as being anecdotal, ungeneralisable, and a poor basis for making scientific decisions. However, it is often a more powerful persuader than scientific publication in changing clinical practice,3-5 as illustrated by the occasional series “A patient who changed my practice” in the BMJ. 6 In an attempt to widen the scope of evidence based medicine, recent workshops have included units on other subjects, including economic analysis and qualitative research.7 However, to do so is to move beyond the discipline of clinical epidemiology that underpins evidence based medicine. Qualitative research, in particular, addresses research questions that are different from those considered by clinical epidemiology. Qualitative research can investigate practitioners' and patients' attitudes, beliefs, and preferences, and the whole question of how evidence is turned into practice. The value of qualitative methods lies in their ability to pursue systematically the kinds of research questions that are not easily answerable by experimental methods. We use the example of asthma treatment to illustrate how qualitative methods can broaden the scope of evidence based medicine. Although there is consensus over evidence based practice in the treatment of asthma,8 questions remain about general practitioners' use of clinical guidelines and patients' use of prescribed medication.9 #### Summary points Qualitative methods can help bridge the gap between scientific evidence and clinical practice …
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
(1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199209033271003 · Cited by 3,725
Qualitative methods for assessing health care.
Fitzpatrick, R., & Boulton, M. (1994) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.3.2.107 · Cited by 298
Cited by
Qualitative methods for health research
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-0901 · Cited by 4,596
Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732302238251 · Cited by 1,216
Qualitative and Mixed Methods Provide Unique Contributions to Outcomes Research
Curry, L. A., Nembhard, I. M., & Bradley, E. H. (2009) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.742775 · Cited by 1,085
Guidelines International Network: Toward International Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines
Qaseem, A., Forland, F., Macbeth, F., Ollenschläger, G., Phillips, S., van der Wees, P., & for the Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network* (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00009 · Cited by 902
Quality in qualitative research
Kitto, S. C., Chesters, J., & Grbich, C. (2008) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01595.x · Cited by 728
Metadata
- Authors
- Green, J., & Britten, N.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-04-18
- Volume
- 316
- Issue
- 7139
- Pages
- 1230-1232
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1999068081
- Cited by
- 491
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 102.66
- 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: Qualitative research and evidence based medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1230
- The paper
- Green, J., & Britten, N. (1998). Qualitative research and evidence based medicine. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1230
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.