Sample Reporting in Qualitative Studies of Women with HIV Infection

Abstract

A key means by which readers judge the validity of both qualitative and quantitative research findings is to consider how well these findings are supported by the sample from which they were drawn. Yet as the authors discovered in the course of a systematic review of qualitative studies of women with HIV infection, relevant features of these samples are not always adequately reported or appropriately presented. Factors impeding the creation of a summary description of these women included haphazard placement of sample information throughout a research report; the misuse of variable-and case-oriented formats for organizing sample information; lack of clarity concerning the use of the same sample in multiple reports by the same investigators; and the presentation of inconsistent, irrelevant, misleading, imprecise, and/or erroneous information. These problems direct writers of qualitative research toward better ways of portraying the people taking part in their studies.

Stigma in HIV‐Positive Women

“…Of the women who participated in these studies, 71% were classified as minority (56% African American); however, minority group affiliation was not specified in every report). The HIV‐positive women in these studies were demographically similar to the HIV‐positive women profiled in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001) surveillance report of HIV/AIDS (Barroso & Sandelowski, 2003).…”

“…The first qualitative study of women with HIV infection known to us that met our inclusion criteria was published in 1991. Further details concerning search procedures and inclusion criteria may be found in Barroso and colleagues (2003). We used a reading guide to extract information about the contents, orientation, structure, and style of every report (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2002b).…”

Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period

“…This lack of transparency about sample size sufficiency is problematic given that most qualitative researchers would agree that it is an important marker of quality [ 56 , 57 ]. Moreover, and with the rise of qualitative research in social sciences, efforts to synthesise existing evidence and assess its quality are obstructed by poor reporting [ 58 , 59 ].…”

Desperately Seeking Dissonance

“…Ten reviews reported identification of the disconfirming case (Paterson et al, 1998;Paterson et al, 1999;Thomas et al, 2003;Greenhalgh & Peacock, 2005;Dixon-Woods et al, 2006b;Sandelowski et al, 2007;Voils et al, 2008;O'Connell & Downe, 2009;Wong et al, 2010). Sixteen additional items discussed methodological considerations (Noblit & Hare, 1988;Jensen & Allen, 1996;Macintyre & Petticrew, 2000;Author, 2001;Barroso & Sandelowski, 2003;Jones, 2004;Lloyd Jones, 2004;Pawson et al, 2004;Walker & Avant, 2005;Dixon Woods et al, 2006a;May, 2006;Petticrew & Roberts, 2006;Downe, 2007;Weed, 2007;Downe, 2008;Noyes et al, 2008). A process of "snowballing" was used to follow up appropriate references (Papaioannou et al, 2010).…”

“…Clearly such search methods, including extensive citation tracking, recognize the relative importance of identifying similarities and differences between the different traditions, in preference to systematic identification of all available evidence. Such considerations, exemplified by Barroso & Sandelowski (2003) within primary qualitative studies, move the model of searching away from a priori identification of all relevant research to more contingent iterative approaches to searching:…”