The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The problem of appraising qualitative research
Open accessAbstract
Qualitative research can make a valuable contribution to the study of quality and safety in health care. Sound ways of appraising qualitative research are needed, but currently there are many different proposals with few signs of an emerging consensus. One problem has been the tendency to treat qualitative research as a unified field. We distinguish universal features of quality from those specific to methodology and offer a set of minimally prescriptive prompts to assist with the assessment of generic features of qualitative research. In using these, account will need to be taken of the particular method of data collection and methodological approach being used. There may be a need for appraisal criteria suited to the different methods of qualitative data collection and to different methodological approaches. These more specific criteria would help to distinguish fatal flaws from more minor errors in the design, conduct, and reporting of qualitative research. There will be difficulties in doing this because some aspects of qualitative research, particularly those relating to quality of insight and interpretation, will remain difficult to appraise and will rely largely on subjective judgement.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“How or whether to appraise papers for inclusion in an interpretive reviews has received a great deal of attention, but there is little sign of an emergent consensus [22].”
From Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups (2006) · cites this paper as [22]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some authors have raised concerns about the use of such checklists and adherence to strict, universal criteria because they do not afford sufficient flexibility to accommodate the diverse approaches and multiple interpretive practices often represented in qualitative studies.[7][8][9][10][11]”
From A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research (2020) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Qualitative studies will be appraised using Dixon-Woods and colleague’s tool for appraising qualitative research [69].”
From The psychological processes of classic psychedelics in the treatment of depression: a systematic review protocol (2022) · cites this paper as [69]
In the citing paper
“Given the plurality of methodologies used in the identified studies, seven criteria for quality appraisal were adopted from different published tools (29–31)1 with the aim of appraising transparency, description of key terms, and coherence.”
From Recovery from Severe Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review of Service User and Informal Caregiver Perspectives (2021) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“There is no consistent approach or theoretical framework, however, in this broad-based research that one might use as a guideline to apply qualitative inquiry to the development of PROs [30–33].”
From PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation (2010) · cites this paper as [31]
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
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,525
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
(1998) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 38,631
Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data
Pope, C. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114 · Cited by 8,131
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
Dilemmas in qualitative health research
Yardley, L. (2000) · Psychology & Health · doi:10.1080/08870440008400302 · Cited by 2,310
Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods.
Russell, C. K., & Morse, J. M. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2076454 · Cited by 2,236
Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973239800800305 · Cited by 987
Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M., & Donovan, J. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00064-3 · Cited by 921
(2003) · Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London) · Cited by 902
Qualitative research and psychological theorizing
Henwood, K. L., & Pidgeon, N. F. (1992) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02426.x · Cited by 808
Qualitative methods in research on healthcare quality
Pope, C. J. (2002) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qhc.11.2.148 · Cited by 602
Ensuring rigour in qualitative research
Seale, C. (1997) · The European Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/eurpub/7.4.379 · Cited by 583
Meta-study of Qualitative Health Research: A Practical Guide to Meta-analysis and Meta-synthesis
Canam, C., & Thorne, S. (2001) · International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance · doi:10.1108/ijhcqa.2001.06214fae.007 · Cited by 453
Schwandt, T. A. (1996) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/107780049600200109 · Cited by 309
Causes of intravenous medication errors: an ethnographic study
Taxis, K. (2003) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qhc.12.5.343 · Cited by 259
Qualitative research in systematic reviews
Dixon‐Woods, M., & Fitzpatrick, R. M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7316.765 · Cited by 232
Self-citationData feedback efforts in quality improvement: lessons learned from US hospitals
Bradley, E. H. (2004) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qhc.13.1.26 · Cited by 197
Quality Issues in Qualitative Inquiry
Seale, C. F. (2002) · Qualitative Social Work · doi:10.1177/147332500200100107 · Cited by 161
Chapple, A. (1998) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/15.6.556 · Cited by 106
Maylor, H. R., & Blackmon, K. (2005) · doi:10.1007/978-1-137-11022-0_12 · Cited by 63
On the Idea of What Constitutes Good Qualitative Inquiry
Engel, J. D., & Kuzel, A. J. (1992) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973239200200409 · Cited by 36
Quality Issues in Qualitative Inquiry
Seale, C. F. (2002) · Qualitative Social Work · doi:10.1177/1473325002001001747 · Cited by 24
Moore, N. (2018) · Facet eBooks · doi:10.29085/9781856049825.016 · Cited by 4
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 · Cited by 42,509
Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-5664 · Cited by 4,081
Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ
Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 · Cited by 3,569
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
Tacconelli, E. (2010) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7 · Cited by 3,270
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581960501000110 · Cited by 2,132
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dixon-Woods, M.
- Venue
- Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-06-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 223-225
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- PMC
- PMC1743851
- OpenAlex
- W2161835779
- Semantic Scholar
- 00ade148e11ef4211840b7d6ec91341177623888
- Cited by
- 653
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 34
- FWCI
- 75.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (acceptedVersion)
- Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (submittedVersion)
- BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (submittedVersion)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (RES-333-34-3002)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Keywords
- appraisal criteria, research quality, healthcare quality and safety, methodological approaches, interpreting quality
- MeSH terms
- United Kingdom, Health Services Research, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Research Design, Safety Management, Consensus, 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
