The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Qualitative research makes an important contribution to our understanding of health and healthcare. However, qualitative evidence can be difficult to search for and identify, and the effectiveness of different types of search strategies is unknown. METHODS: Three search strategies for qualitative research in the example area of support for breast-feeding were evaluated using six electronic bibliographic databases. The strategies were based on using thesaurus terms, free-text terms and broad-based terms. These strategies were combined with recognised search terms for support for breast-feeding previously used in a Cochrane review. For each strategy, we evaluated the recall (potentially relevant records found) and precision (actually relevant records found). RESULTS: A total yield of 7420 potentially relevant records was retrieved by the three strategies combined. Of these, 262 were judged relevant. Using one strategy alone would miss relevant records. The broad-based strategy had the highest recall and the thesaurus strategy the highest precision. Precision was generally poor: 96% of records initially identified as potentially relevant were deemed irrelevant. Searching for qualitative research involves trade-offs between recall and precision. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm that strategies that attempt to maximise the number of potentially relevant records found are likely to result in a large number of false positives. The findings also suggest that a range of search terms is required to optimise searching for qualitative evidence. This underlines the problems of current methods for indexing qualitative research in bibliographic databases and indicates where improvements need to be made.
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
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
Murphy, Dingwall, Greatbatch, Parker, & Watson (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2160 · Cited by 1,107
The Challenges of Searching for and Retrieving Qualitative Studies
Barroso, J., Gollop, C. J., Sandelowski, M., Meynell, J., Pearce, P. F., & Collins, L. J. (2003) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/0193945902250034 · Cited by 272
Cited by
Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., & Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0 · Cited by 2,706
Beyond 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
Self-citationMays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308576 · Cited by 1,375
Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt
Atkins, S., Lewin, S., Smith, H., Engel, M., Fretheim, A., & Volmink, J. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-21 · Cited by 981
McFarland, L. V. (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00465.x · Cited by 872
Metadata
- Authors
- Shaw, R. L., Booth, A., Sutton, A. J., Miller, T., Smith, J. A., Young, B., Jones, D. R., & Dixon-Woods, M.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2004-03-16
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-5
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2108307581
- Cited by
- 295
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.37
- 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: Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-4-5
- The paper
- Shaw, R. L., Booth, A., Sutton, A. J., Miller, T., Smith, J. A., Young, B., Jones, D. R., & Dixon-Woods, M. (2004). Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-5
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.