The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews
Open accessAbstract
Findings from knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews have the potential to help guide policy formation and practice in many disciplines. Unfortunately, this potential is currently hindered by the fact that rigorous data analysis methods have not been consistently used and/or articulated for purposes of conducting these types of reviews. Content analysis is a flexible data analysis method that can be used to conduct qualitative systematic reviews; however, its application in this context has not been fully explicated. Qualitative systematic reviewers who aim to build knowledge and generate theory are urged to adapt content analysis methods to accommodate data that are, by nature, highly organized and contextualized. In addition, they are encouraged to use reflective memoing and diagramming to ensure valid integration, interpretation, and synthesis of findings across studies. Finally, reviewers are advised to clearly and fully explain their data analysis methods in research reports.
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
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
The qualitative content analysis process
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x · Cited by 22,617
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 · Cited by 20,772
Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781452230153 · Cited by 12,136
The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781848607941 · Cited by 2,798 · cited 1×
“Based on a process of constant iterative reflection, it is difficult to ignore personal biases and contradictory evidence, and researchers are driven toward the synthesis of evidence-based concepts and propositions (Birks et al., 2008; Jasper, 2005; Mruck and Mey, 2007).”
BackgroundO’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794112446106 · Cited by 1,943
Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes
Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008) · Journal of Research in Nursing · doi:10.1177/1744987107081254 · Cited by 1,519
Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research
Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001) · doi:10.4135/9781412985017 · Cited by 664 · cited 3×
“To overcome this problem, researchers (e.g. Paterson et al., 2001; Sandelowski and Barroso, 2007) have developed methods to analyze qualitative findings from across multiple investigations through systematic review (Campbell et al., 2011; Finfgeld-Connett, 2010b).”
BackgroundMethodEvaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research
Campbell, R., Pound, P., Morgan, M., Daker-White, G., Britten, N., Pill, R., Yardley, L., Pope, C., & Donovan, J. (2011) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta15430 · Cited by 619
On Solid Ground: Essential Properties for Growing Grounded Theory
Stern, P. N. (2007) · The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory · doi:10.4135/9781848607941.n5 · Cited by 171
Cited by
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000151 · Cited by 2,286
Digital Engagement of Older Adults: Scoping Review
Kebede, A. S., Ozolins, L.-L., Holst, H., & Galvin, K. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/40192 · Cited by 298
(2018) · doi:10.1145/3274404 · Cited by 122
Voice in non-traditional employment relationships: a review and future research directions
Oyetunde, K., Prouska, R., & McKearney, A. (2022) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2021.1964093 · Cited by 30
Crumb, L., Crowe, A., Averett, P., Harris, J. A., & Dart, C. (2021) · Emerging Adulthood · doi:10.1177/2167696819852563 · Cited by 16
Belisle, L. A., Reed, S., Clark, E. R., & Pinchevsky, G. M. (2024) · Trauma, Violence, & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380241270083 · Cited by 13
Using Feminist Geography to Understand Feelings of Safety and Neighborhood Image
Zavattaro, S. (2019) · Journal of Health and Human Services Administration · doi:10.1177/107937391904200202 · Cited by 11
Silva, W., Virtanen, E., Kajantie, E., & Sebert, S. (2024) · Acta Paediatrica · doi:10.1111/apa.17105 · Cited by 9
What makes an idea risky? The relations between perceptions of idea novelty, usefulness, and risk
Keith, M. G., Freier, L. M., Childers, M., Ponce‐Pore, I., & Brooks, S. (2024) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.621 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Finfgeld-Connett, D.
- Venue
- Qualitative Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-04-04
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 341-352
- ISSN
- 1468-7941 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3109
- OpenAlex
- W2038651539
- Cited by
- 431
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 13.21
- 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
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.
