Understanding qualitative research in health care

doi:10.1136/dtb.2017.2.0457

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We performed a multi-step 360-degree assessment of the studies. It consisted of their classification according to level of evidence for a quantitative appraisal of their methodological quality using a validated tool, and a narrative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the COVID-19 publications, as is often used in social sciences [25]. Early citation frequencies of the original articles was determined.…”

Section: Multi-step Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific quality of COVID-19 and SARS CoV-2 publications in the highest impact medical journals during the early phase of the pandemic: A case control study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 themed research has emerged. We explored whether the quality of evidence of COVID-19 publications is lower when compared to nonCOVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals. Methods We searched the PubMed Database from March 12 to April 12, 2020 and identified 559 publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet which were divided into COVID-19 (cases, n = 204) and nonCOVID-19 (controls, n = 355) associated content. After exclusion of secondary, unauthored, response letters and non-matching article types, 155 COVID-19 publications (including 13 original articles) and 130 nonCOVID-19 publications (including 52 original articles) were included in the comparative analysis. The hierarchical level of evidence was determined for each publication included and compared between cases and controls as the main outcome. A quantitative scoring of quality was carried out for the subgroup of original articles. The numbers of authors and citation rates were also compared between groups. Results The 130 nonCOVID-19 publications were associated with higher levels of evidence on the level of evidence pyramid, with a strong association measure (Cramer’s V: 0.452, P <0.001). The 155 COVID-19 publications were 186-fold more likely to be of lower evidence (95% confidence interval [CI] for odds ratio, 7.0–47; P <0.001). The quantitative quality score (maximum possible score, 28) was significantly different in favor of nonCOVID-19 (mean difference, 11.1; 95% CI, 8.5–13.7; P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the early citation rate of the original articles that favored the COVID-19 original articles (median [interquartile range], 45 [30–244] vs. 2 [1–4] citations; P <0.001). Conclusions We conclude that the quality of COVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals is below the quality average of these journals. These findings need to be verified at a later stage of the pandemic.

show abstract

Section: Multi-step Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific quality of COVID-19 and SARS CoV-2 publications in the highest impact medical journals during the early phase of the pandemic: A case control study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The free-text answers "comments to improve", which were provided by students for both seminar and fishbowl group, were analyzed according to the principles of content analysis. All written comments were grouped (by one researcher) by topic, using an "open coding" method to list the data analytically [ 13 ]; this was to be ensured that all aspects of each theme were considered [ 19 ]. Subsequently, the comments were compared, and the conceptually similar comments were identified and grouped according to topics.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital teaching tools in sports medicine: A randomized control trial comparing the effectiveness of virtual seminar and virtual fishbowl teaching method in medical students

Hertling

Hertling²,

Matziolis

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for online courses has increased enormously. Therefore, finding new methods to improve medical education is imperative. Objective The aim of this study was to compare the self-reports of the individual student-centered virtual teaching techniques (seminar versus fishbowl) in a group of medical students. Methods During the second semester of 2020, students in the clinical phase of the study (n = 144) participated in the optional subject of Sports Medicine. The students were divided into 2 groups. One group (n = 72) received the knowledge transfer in the form of a virtual seminar, the other group (n = 72) in the form of a virtual fishbowl. Results Virtual seminar and virtual fishbowl students gave insights into these teaching techniques. Most of the students from the virtual fishbowl group believed that the virtual fishbowl format allowed them to be more actively involved in learning. The mean quiz scores were statistically higher for students in the virtual fishbowl group than students in the virtual seminar group (p < 0. 001). Conclusion This study concluded that virtual seminars and virtual fishbowl formats could be served as structured learning and teaching formats. At the same time, the virtual fishbowl format can promote an active exchange of knowledge from students’ perspectives.

show abstract

“…This was a qualitative descriptive study. Qualitative studies are used as an in-depth approach to research phenomena that are difficult to quantify numerically, including feelings, interpretations, meanings and behavioral aspects [ 31 ]. Qualitative data can shed light on the complexity of human behavior [ 32 ], which is why they were appropriate in this study to understand practices related to maternal vaccination from the perspective of midwives and their experiences.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, Perceptions, Attitudes and Practices of Midwives Regarding Maternal Influenza and Pertussis Vaccination: A Qualitative Study

Marañón

Fernández-Cano

Montero-Pons

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The coverage of maternal vaccination against pertussis and, particularly, influenza is lower than expected. The lack of recommendation from healthcare providers conditions non-vaccination in pregnant women. The purpose was to determine the knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and practices of midwives regarding maternal influenza and pertussis vaccination. A qualitative descriptive study based on semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with seventeen midwives was conducted, including purposive sampling and thematic analyses. Midwives had disparate knowledge and perceptions about the severity of influenza and pertussis in pregnant women, and influenza was not considered very serious. The vaccines were generally considered safe. However, because midwives did not have enough information about the safety of the influenza vaccine, there was a tendency not to recommend it. While most midwives had a positive attitude toward vaccination, their advocation for vaccination against influenza was not as clear as it was for pertussis. Not wanting to influence the decision and assuming an informative–facilitating role also led providers to recommend the influenza vaccine less frequently. Midwives are among the main sources of professional advice for pregnant women. Addressing their understanding and professional practices regarding maternal vaccination is key to change the attitude of pregnant women and thus increase vaccine uptake among them, particularly for influenza.

show abstract

Understanding qualitative research in health care

Cited by 9 publications

References 14 publications

Scientific quality of COVID-19 and SARS CoV-2 publications in the highest impact medical journals during the early phase of the pandemic: A case control study

Scientific quality of COVID-19 and SARS CoV-2 publications in the highest impact medical journals during the early phase of the pandemic: A case control study

Digital teaching tools in sports medicine: A randomized control trial comparing the effectiveness of virtual seminar and virtual fishbowl teaching method in medical students

Knowledge, Perceptions, Attitudes and Practices of Midwives Regarding Maternal Influenza and Pertussis Vaccination: A Qualitative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About