A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research

Daly, Jeanne; Willis, Karen; Small, Rhonda; Green, Julie; Welch, Nicky; Kealy, Michelle; Hughes, Emma

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.014

Cited by 436 publications

(404 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

380

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Data extracted included title and author, affiliation and source of funds, study design, location or setting, intervention, sample size, population characteristics, length of follow-up, outcome measured, internal validity, applicability, sustainability and results. Qualitative studies were further classified as one of four types as described by Daly et al (14) : (i) case studies (studies that focus on a single situation or case -level IV evidence); (ii) descriptive studies (studies that focus on a specific sample -level III evidence); (iii) conceptual studies that have a theoretical framework (level II evidence); or (iv) generalisable studies, which are guided by a comprehensive literature review, conceptual framework and diversified sample (level I evidence). The data were then summarised and then tabulated in Table 3.…”

Section: Study Retrieval and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: a systematic review

Iacovou

Pattieson

Truby

et al. 2012

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Community kitchens have been implemented by communities as a public health strategy to prevent food insecurity through reducing social isolation, improving food and cooking skills and empowering participants. The aim of the present paper was to investigate whether community kitchens can improve the social and nutritional health of participants and their families. Design: A systematic review of the literature was conducted including searches of seven databases with no date limitations. Setting: Community kitchens internationally. Subjects: Participants of community kitchens across the world. Results: Ten studies (eight qualitative studies, one mixed-method study and one cross-sectional study) were selected for inclusion. Evidence synthesis suggested that community kitchens may be an effective strategy to improve participants' cooking skills, social interactions and nutritional intake. Community kitchens may also play a role in improving participants' budgeting skills and address some concerns around food insecurity. Long-term solutions are required to address income-related food insecurity. Conclusions: Community kitchens may improve social interactions and nutritional intake of participants and their families. More rigorous research methods, for both qualitative and quantitative studies, are required to effectively assess the impact of community kitchens on social and nutritional health in order to confidently recommend them as a strategy in evidence-based public health practice.

show abstract

Section: Study Retrieval and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: a systematic review

Iacovou

Pattieson

Truby

et al. 2012

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In qualitative studies, the number of participants is usually determined by inductive sampling, i.e. by the need to encompass the range of possible responses and to achieve theoretical 'saturation' [32,33]. In this study, more than three-quarters of the global sample of FM patients (n = 56 out of 73) were interested to communicate their experience of FM onset and accepted to participate in a semi-structured interview.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary attributions in women suffering fibromyalgia emphasize the perception of a disruptive onset for a long-lasting pain problem

Cedraschi¹,

Girard²,

Luthy³

et al. 2013

Journal of Psychosomatic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic musculoskeletal pain disorder characterized by widespread pain. This study focuses on patients' attributions of illness and of symptom onset. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 56 women to elicit patients' views on what triggered their FM. The transcripts of the interviews were analyzed using a classical indexing technique to identify key themes. Content analysis was performed by two independent coders. Results: Primary causal attributions fell into five categories: psychological problems (28 respondents); somatic concerns (N=12); violence/abuse during childhood (N=7), gynaecological/obstetrical problems (N=6), and fatigue (N=3). Patients' attributions were internal and external in the same proportions, more frequently unstable than stable, and more often described uncontrollable than controllable. Participants expressed decrements in self-esteem and feelings such as self-blame or despair; global perceptions of persistent pain and long-lasting problems, evoking chronicity and hopelessness; and low perceived control over their lives as well as beliefs that nothing can be done, thus increasing a feeling of guilt and vulnerability. Patients' narratives emphasized disruptive circumstances surrounding symptom onset. Conclusion: Attributions often referred to the psychological dimension of the events surrounding FM onset, even though some of them also had a clear somatic dimension. Many narratives mentioned successive disruptive events and suggested an increasing loss of control. Addressing these illness representations may contribute to tailor the treatment and to help patients gain self-coherency by providing means to understand pain onset but also to guide future behaviours, particularly in terms of adjustment and help-seeking.

show abstract

“…The assessment of the quality of qualitative studies was based on criteria held in the literature to denote high quality (Elliott et al, 1999;Daly et al, 2007;Chwalisz et al, 2008). Criteria included whether: the sampling frame was described, justified, or met; the framework for the study design, methodology and orientation disclosed; interviewer bias was addressed; the method of analysis was described; reliability and validity checks were included; data were clearly presented.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%