Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conducting qualitative research in mental health: Thematic and content analyses

Crowe, Marie, Inder, Maree, Porter, Richard·2015·Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this paper is to describe two methods of qualitative analysis – thematic analysis and content analysis – and to examine their use in a mental health context. Method: A description of the processes of thematic analysis and content analysis is provided. These processes are then illustrated by conducting two analyses of the same qualitative data. Transcripts of qualitative interviews are analysed using each method to illustrate these processes. Results: The illustration of the processes highlights the different outcomes from the same set of data. Conclusion: Thematic and content analyses are qualitative methods that serve different research purposes. Thematic analysis provides an interpretation of participants’ meanings, while content analysis is a direct representation of participants’ responses. These methods provide two ways of understanding meanings and experiences and provide important knowledge in a mental health context.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0004867415582053

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.4135/9781849209731.n1 · DOI
  2. 10.1111/j.1447-0349.2008.00526.x · DOI
  3. Boyd C, 2011, Rural and Remote Health, 11
  4. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00780.x · DOI
  5. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01673.x · DOI
  6. 10.1177/070674370805300303 · DOI
  7. Denzin N, 2003, Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials
  8. 10.3109/09638237.2014.880408 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/s11126-010-9125-3 · DOI
  10. Joffe H, 2004, Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology, 56
  11. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03681.x · DOI
  12. Krippendorf K (2013) Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  13. 10.1111/jpm.12053 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/inm.12063 · DOI
  15. QSR International, 2007, NVivo 8
  16. 10.1111/nhs.12048 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2008.01319.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 398

Metadata

Authors
Crowe, M., Inder, M., & Porter, R.
Affiliations
Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
Venue
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2015-04-21
Volume
49
Issue
7
Pages
616-623
ISSN
  • 0004-8674
  • 1440-1614
Cited by
398
References
4
Language
en

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