Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative research in medicine and health care

Questions and controversy

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Qualitative research is becoming more prominent in medicine. It is still not clear how it can address either clinical or biopsychosocial research questions. Methodologic standards and guidelines for qualitative research in medicine and health care remain too sketchy to help one evaluate a qualitative study critically. Alternatives for addressing complex real-life questions quantitatively exist. Until better guidelines for qualitative research become available, we urge caution about using evidence from qualitative studies. Developments of such standards and guidelines are perhaps being hindered by continuing controversies among advocates of qualitative research about whether truth exists independent of its observer, and whether bias should be eliminated, disclosed, or actively encouraged. These controversies undermine the credibility of qualitative research for clinical and health services research audiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berkwits M, Aronowitz R. Different questions beg different methods. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:409–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Inui T. The virtue of qualitative and quantitative research. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:770–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jones R. Why do qualitative research? It should begin to close the gap between the sciences of discovery and implementation. BMJ. 1995;311:2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Oxman AD, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, for the Evidence-Based Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature, I: how to get started. JAMA. 1993;270:2093–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hull SA. The method of Balint group work and its contribution to research in general practice. Fam Pract. 1996;13:S10–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Helman C. The application of anthropological methods in general practice research. Fam Pract. 1996;13:S13–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McGee D, Reed D, Yano K. The results of logistic analyses when the variables are highly correlated: an empirical example using diet and CHD incidence. J Chron Dis. 1984;37:713–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. National Heart. Lund and Blood Institute. Report of the Task Force on Research in Epidemiology and Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases. Washington, DC: National Institute of Health; 1994:59–61.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zeger SL, Lian KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986;42:121–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. While D, Kelly S, Huang W, Charlton A. Cigarette advertising and onset of smoking in children: questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1996;313:398–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Aitken PP, Eadie DR, Hastings GB, Haywood AJ. Predisposing effects of cigarette advertising on children’s intentions to smoke when older. Br J Addict. 1991;86:383–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Unger JB, Johnson CA, Rohrbach LA. Recognition and liking of tobacco and alcohol advertisements among adolescents: relationship with susceptibility to substance use. Prev Med. 1995;24:461–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Klitzner M, Gruenewald PJ, Bamberger E. Cigarette advertising and adolescent experimentation with smoking. Br J Addict. 1991;86:287–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Laugesen M, Meads C. Advertising, price, income and publicity effects on weekly cigarette sales in New Zealand supermarkets. Br J Addict. 1991;86:83–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. McWhinney IR. ‘An acquaintance with particulars ...’ Fam Med. 1989;21:297–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:42–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gilchrist VJ, Engel JD. Qualitative research and clinical care. J Fam Pract. 1995;41:229–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Armstrong D. Measuring man: some problems of method. Fam Pract. 1996;13:S6–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eraker SA, Kirscht JP, Becker MH. Understanding and improving patient compliance. Ann Intern Med. 1984;100:258–68.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Stephenson BJ, Rowe BH, Haynes RB, Macharia WM, Leon G. Is the patient taking the treatment as prescribed? JAMA. 1993;269:2779–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bickman L, Henchy T. Beyond the Laboratory: Field Research in Social Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Isen AM. Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. In: Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1987;20:203–53.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Webb EJ. Unobstrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago, Ill: Rand-McNally; 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eisenberg JM. Doctors’ Decisions and the Cost of Medical Care. Ann Arbor, Mich: Health Administration Press Perspectives; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bradley CP. Decision making and prescribing patterns—a literature review. Fam Pract. 1991;8:276–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Green LA, Becker MP. Physician decision making and variation in hospital admission rates for suspected acute cardiac ischemia: a tale of two towns. Med Care. 1994;32:1086–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. VanMillenburg-van Zijl AJM, Simoons M, Bossuyt PMM, Taylor TR, Voerhoeck MS. Validation in the use of coronary angiography in patients with unstable angina is related to differences in patient population and availability of angiography facilities without affecting prognosis. Eur Heart J. 1996;17:1828–35.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wachter RM, Luce J, Heerst N, Lo B. Decisions about resuscitation: inquities among patients with different diseases but similar prognoses. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:525–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Nightingale SD. Risk preference and laboratory use. Med Decis Making. 1987;7:168–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Heckerling PS, Tape TG, Wigtom RS. Relation of physicians predicted probabilities of pneumonia to their utilities for ordering chest x-rays to detect pneumonia. Med Decis Making. 1992;12:32–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Tsevat J, Cook EF, Green ML, et al. Health values of the seriously ill. Ann Intern Med. 1994;122:514–20.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hult JR, Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. Heterogeneity in the relationship between the standard-gamble utility measure and health-status dimensions. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:226–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Williams JI, Levy L, Naylor CD. Using a trade-off technique to assess patients’ treatment preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:262–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Taylor SE. Health Psychology, 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill: in press.

  35. Aspinwall LG, Taylor SE. A stitch in time: self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychol Bull. 1997;121:417–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Rich JA, Stone DA. The experience of violent injury for young African-American men: the meaning of being a “sucker.” J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:77–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kravitz RL, Callahan EJ, Peterniti D, Antonius D, Dunham M, Lewis CE. Prevalence and sources of patients’ unmet expectations of care. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:730–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Allery LA, Owen PA, Robling MR. Why general practitioners and consultants change their practice: a critical incident study. BMJ. 1997;314:870–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Poses RM. “The sucker notion.” J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:381–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Poses RM. Conclusions about why doctors change their practice were not supported by the data. BMJ. 1997;314:1908.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Als AB. The desk-top computer as a magic box: patterns of behavior connected with the desk-top computer; GP’s and patients’ perceptions. Fam Pract. 1997;14:17–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Inui TS, Frankel RM. Evaluating the quality of qualitative research: a proposal pro tem. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:485–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Reid AS. What we want: qualitative research. Can Fam Physician. 1996;42:387–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Shmerling A, Schattner P, Piterman L. Qualitative research in medical practice. Med J Aust. 1993;158:619–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Ryan K, Denz-Penhey H. Qualitative research in medical practice. N Z Med J. 1996;109:87–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mays N, Pope C. Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ. 1995;311:109–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Elder NC, Miller WL. Reviewing and evaluating qualitative research studies. J Fam Pract. 1995;41:279–85.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Britten N, Jones R, Murphy E, Stacy R. Qualitative research methods in general practice and primary care. Fam Pract. 1995;12:104–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Goering PN, Streiner DL. Reconcilable difference: the marriage of qualitative methods. Can J Psychiatry. 1996;41:491–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kuzel AJ, Engel JD, Addison RB, Bogdewic SP. Desirable features of qualitative research. Fam Pract Res J. 1994;14:369–78.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Miller WL, Crabtree BP. Qualitative analysis: how to begin to make sense. Fam Pract Res J. 1994;14:289–97.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Mays N, Pope C. Observational methods in health care settings. BMJ. 1995;311:182–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Britten N. Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ. 1995;311:251–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Kitzinger J. Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;311:299–302.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:376–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Keen J, Packwood T. Case study evaluation. BMJ. 1995;311:444–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Frasier PY, Slatt L, Kowlowitz V, Kollisch DO, Mintzer M. Focus groups: a useful tool for curriculum evaluation. Fam Med. 1997;29:500–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EW. Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials. 2nd ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams and Wilkins; 1993:12.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Isen AM, Hastorf AH. Some perspectives on cognitive social psychology. In: Hastorf AH, Isen AM, editors. Cognitive Social Psychology. New York, NY: Elsevier; 1982;1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Griffiths F. Qualitative research: the research questions it can help answer, the methods it uses, the assumptions behind the research questions and what influences the direction of research: a summary of the panel discussion at the conference “Exploring qualitative research in general practice.” Fam Pract. 1996;13:S27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Henwood KL, Pidgeon NF. Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. Br J Psychol. 1992;83:97–111.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Gubrium JF. Qualitative research comes of age in gerontology. Gerontologist. 1992;32:581–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Murphy E, Mattson B. Qualitative research and family medicine: a marriage made in heaven? Fam Pract. 1992;9:85–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Britten N, Fisher B. Qualitative research and general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1993;43:270–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Charon R, Greene MG, Adelman RD. Multi-dimensional interaction analysis: a collaborative approach to the study of medical discourse. Soc Sci Med. 1994;39:955–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Gehlbach SH. Interpreting the Medical Literature: Practical Epidemiology for Clinicians. 2nd ed. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co; 1988:95.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Received from the Departments of Medicine and Community Health, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, Pawtucket

    Poy M. Poses MD

  2. Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI

    Poy M. Poses MD

  3. Department of Psychology and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

    Alice M. Isen PhD

Authors
  1. Poy M. Poses MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alice M. Isen PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Editor’s Note—The following Perspectives article began as a letter to the editor. I encouraged the authors to write a longer manuscript because of the importance of the issue and the complexity of the arguments. In the spirit of encouraging productive dialogue, comments about this article are published in this issue in the Letters to the Editor section.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Poses, P.M., Isen, A.M. Qualitative research in medicine and health care. J GEN INTERN MED 13, 32–38 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00005.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00005.x

Keywords

Search

Navigation