examples of qualitative research in public health

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Common Data Types in Public Health Research

Quantitative data.

• Quantitative data is measurable, often used for comparisons, and involves counting of people, behaviors, conditions, or other discrete events (Wang, 2013).
• Quantitative data uses numbers to determine the what, who, when, and where of health-related events (Wang, 2013).
• Examples of quantitative data include: age, weight, temperature, or the number of people suffering from diabetes.

Qualitative Data

• Qualitative data is a broad category of data that can include almost any non-numerical data.
• Qualitative data uses words to describe a particular health-related event (Romano).
• This data can be observed, but not measured.
• Involves observing people in selected places and listening to discover how they feel and why they might feel that way (Wang, 2013).
• Examples of qualitative data include: male/female, smoker/non-smoker, or questionnaire response (agree, disagree, neutral).
• Measuring organizational change.
• Measures of clinical leadership in implementing evidence-based guidelines.
• Patient perceptions of quality of care.

Data Sources

Primary data sources.

• Primary data analysis in which the same individual or team of researchers designs, collects, and analyzes the data, for the purpose of answering a research question (Koziol & Arthur, nd).

Advantages to Using Primary Data

• You collect exactly the data elements that you need to answer your research question (Romano).
• You can test an intervention, such as an experimental drug or an educational program, in the purest way (a double-blind randomized controlled trial (Romano).
• You control the data collection process, so you can ensure data quality, minimize the number of missing values, and assess the reliability of your instruments (Romano).

Secondary Data Sources

• Existing data collected for another purposes, that you use to answer your research question (Romano).

Advantages of Working with Secondary Data

• Large samples
• Can provide population estimates : for example state data can be combined across states to get national estimates (Shaheen, Pan, & Mukherjee).
• Less expensive to collect than primary data (Romano)
• It takes less time to collect secondary data (Romano).
• You may not need to worry about informed consent, human subjects restriction (Romano).

Issues in Using Secondary Data

• Study design and data collection already completed (Koziol & Arthur, nd).
• Data may not facilitate particular research question o Information regarding study design and data collection procedures may be scarce.
• Data may potentially lack depth (the greater the breadth the harder it is to measure any one construct in depth) (Koziol & Arthur, nd).
• Certain fields or departments (e.g., experimental programs) may place less value on secondary data analysis (Koziol & Arthur, nd).
• Often requires special techniques to analyze statistically the data.

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• CDC Field Epidemiology Manual Chapters

Collecting and Analyzing Qualitative Data

At a glance.

Chapter 10 of The CDC Field Epidemiology Manual

Introduction

Qualitative research methods are a key component of field epidemiologic investigations because they can provide insight into the perceptions, values, opinions, and community norms where investigations are being conducted 1 2 . Open-ended inquiry methods, the mainstay of qualitative interview techniques, are essential in formative research for exploring contextual factors and rationales for risk behaviors that do not fit neatly into predefined categories. For example, during the 2014–2015 Ebola virus disease outbreaks in parts of West Africa, understanding the cultural implications of burial practices within different communities was crucial to designing and monitoring interventions for safe burials (see below). In program evaluations, qualitative methods can assist the investigator in diagnosing what went right or wrong as part of a process evaluation or in troubleshooting why a program might not be working as well as expected. When designing an intervention, qualitative methods can be useful in exploring dimensions of acceptability to increase the chances of intervention acceptance and success. When performed in conjunction with quantitative studies, qualitative methods can help the investigator confirm, challenge, or deepen the validity of conclusions than either component might have yielded alone 1 2 .

Qualitative Research During the Ebola Virus Disease Outbreaks in Parts of West Africa (2014)‎

Qualitative research was used extensively in response to the Ebola virus disease outbreaks in parts of West Africa to understand burial practices and to design culturally appropriate strategies to ensure safe burials. Qualitative studies were also used to monitor key aspects of the response.

In October 2014, Liberia experienced an abrupt and steady decrease in case counts and deaths in contrast with predicted disease models of an increased case count. At the time, communities were resistant to entering Ebola treatment centers, raising the possibility that patients were not being referred for care and communities might be conducting occult burials.

To assess what was happening at the community level, the Liberian Emergency Operations Center recruited epidemiologists from the US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the African Union to investigate the problem.

Teams conducted in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with community leaders, local funeral directors, and coffin makers and learned that communities were not conducting occult burials and that the overall number of burials was less than what they had experienced in previous years. Other key findings included the willingness of funeral directors to cooperate with disease response efforts, the need for training of funeral home workers, and considerable community resistance to cremation practices. These findings prompted the Emergency Operations Center to open a burial ground for Ebola decedents, support enhanced testing of burials in the private sector, and train private-sector funeral workers regarding safe burial practices.

Source: Melissa Corkum, personal communication

Choosing When to Apply Qualitative Methods

Similar to quantitative approaches, qualitative research seeks answers to specific questions by using rigorous approaches to collecting and compiling information and producing findings that can be applicable beyond the study population. The fundamental difference in approaches lies in how they translate real-life complexities of initial observations into units of analysis. Data collected in qualitative studies typically are in the form of text or visual images, which provide rich sources of insight but also tend to be bulky and time-consuming to code and analyze. Practically speaking, qualitative study designs tend to favor small, purposively selected samples 1 ideal for case studies or in-depth analysis. The combination of purposive sampling and open-ended question formats deprive qualitative study designs of the power to quantify and generalize conclusions, one of the key limitations of this approach.

Qualitative scientists might argue, however, that the generalizability and precision possible through probabilistic sampling and categorical outcomes are achieved at the cost of enhanced validity, nuance, and naturalism that less structured approaches offer 3 . Open-ended techniques are particularly useful for understanding subjective meanings and motivations underlying behavior. They enable investigators to be equally adept at exploring factors observed and unobserved, intentions as well as actions, internal meanings as well as external consequences, options considered but not taken, and unmeasurable as well as measurable outcomes. These methods are important when the source of or solution to a public health problem is rooted in local perceptions rather than objectively measurable characteristics selected by outside observers 3 . Ultimately, such approaches have the ability to go beyond quantifying questions of how much or how many to take on questions of how or why from the perspective and in the words of the study subjects themselves 1 2 .

Another key advantage of qualitative methods for field investigations is their flexibility 4 . Qualitative designs not only enable but also encourage flexibility in the content and flow of questions to challenge and probe for deeper meanings or follow new leads if they lead to deeper understanding of an issue 5 . It is not uncommon for topic guides to be adjusted in the course of fieldwork to investigate emerging themes relevant to answering the original study question. As discussed herein, qualitative study designs allow flexibility in sample size to accommodate the need for more or fewer interviews among particular groups to determine the root cause of an issue (see the section on Sampling and Recruitment in Qualitative Research). In the context of field investigations, such methods can be extremely useful for investigating complex or fast-moving situations where the dimensions of analysis cannot be fully anticipated.

Ultimately, the decision whether to include qualitative research in a particular field investigation depends mainly on the nature of the research question itself. Certain types of research topics lend themselves more naturally to qualitative rather than other approaches ( Table 10.1 ). These include exploratory investigations when not enough is known about a problem to formulate a hypothesis or develop a fixed set of questions and answer codes. They include research questions where intentions matter as much as actions and "why?" or "why not?" questions matter as much as precise estimation of measured outcomes. Qualitative approaches also work well when contextual influences, subjective meanings, stigma, or strong social desirability biases lower faith in the validity of responses coming from a relatively impersonal survey questionnaire interview.

The availability of personnel with training and experience in qualitative interviewing or observation is critical for obtaining the best quality data but is not absolutely required for rapid assessment in field settings. Qualitative interviewing requires a broader set of skills than survey interviewing. It is not enough to follow a topic guide like a questionnaire, in order, from top to bottom. A qualitative interviewer must exercise judgment to decide when to probe and when to move on, when to encourage, challenge, or follow relevant leads even if they are not written in the topic guide. Ability to engage with informants, connect ideas during the interview, and think on one's feet are common characteristics of good qualitative interviewers. By far the most important qualification in conducting qualitative fieldwork is a firm grasp of the research objectives; with this qualification, a member of the research team armed with curiosity and a topic guide can learn on the job with successful results.

Examples of research topics for which qualitative methods should be considered for field investigations

Research topic

Exploratory research

The relevant questions or answer options are unknown in advance

In-depth case studies Situation analyses by viewing a problem from multiple perspectives Hypothesis generation

Understanding the role of context

Risk exposure or care-seeking behavior is embedded in particular social or physical environments

Key barriers or enablers to effective response Competing concerns that might interfere with each other Environmental behavioral interactions

Understanding the role of perceptions and subjective meaning

Different perception or meaning of the same observable facts influence risk exposure or behavioral response

Why or why not questions Understanding how persons make health decisions Exploring options considered but not taken

Understanding context and meaning of hidden, sensitive, or illegal behaviors

Legal barriers or social desirability biases prevent candid reporting by using conventional interviewing methods

Risky sexual or drug use behaviors Quality-of-care questions Questions that require a higher degree of trust between respondent and interviewer to obtain valid answers

Evaluating how interventions work in practice

Evaluating What went right or, more commonly, what went wrong with a public health response Process or outcome evaluations Who benefited in what way from what perceived change in practice

‘How’ questions Why interventions fail Unintended consequences of programs Patient–provider interactions

Commonly Used Qualitative Methods in Field Investigations

Semi-structured interviews.

Semi-structured interviews can be conducted with single participants (in-depth or individual key informants) or with groups (focus group discussions [FGDs] or key informant groups). These interviews follow a suggested topic guide rather than a fixed questionnaire format. Topic guides typically consist of a limited number (10-15) of broad, open-ended questions followed by bulleted points to facilitate optional probing. The conversational back-and-forth nature of a semi-structured format puts the researcher and researched (the interview participants) on more equal footing than allowed by more structured formats. Respondents, the term used in the case of quantitative questionnaire interviews, become informants in the case of individual semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs) or participants in the case of FGDs. Freedom to probe beyond initial responses enables interviewers to actively engage with the interviewee to seek clarity, openness, and depth by challenging informants to reach below layers of self-presentation and social desirability. In this respect, interviewing is sometimes compared with peeling an onion, with the first version of events accessible to the public, including survey interviewers, and deeper inner layers accessible to those who invest the time and effort to build rapport and gain trust. (The theory of the active interview suggests that all interviews involve staged social encounters where the interviewee is constantly assessing interviewer intentions and adjusting his or her responses accordingly 1 . Consequently good rapport is important for any type of interview. Survey formats give interviewers less freedom to divert from the preset script of questions and formal probes.)

Individual In-Depth Interviews and Key-Informant Interviews

The most common forms of individual semi-structured interviews are IDIs and key informant interviews (KIIs). IDIs are conducted among informants typically selected for first-hand experience (e.g., service users, participants, survivors) relevant to the research topic. These are typically conducted as one-on-one face-to-face interviews (two-on-one if translators are needed) to maximize rapport-building and confidentiality. KIIs are similar to IDIs but focus on individual persons with special knowledge or influence (e.g., community leaders or health authorities) that give them broader perspective or deeper insight into the topic area (See: Identifying Barriers and Solutions to Improved Healthcare Worker Practices in Egypt ). Whereas IDIs tend to focus on personal experiences, context, meaning, and implications for informants, KIIs tend to steer away from personal questions in favor of expert insights or community perspectives. IDIs enable flexible sampling strategies and represent the interviewing reference standard for confidentiality, rapport, richness, and contextual detail. However, IDIs are time-and labor-intensive to collect and analyze. Because confidentiality is not a concern in KIIs, these interviews might be conducted as individual or group interviews, as required for the topic area.

Focus Group Discussions and Group Key Informant Interviews

FGDs are semi-structured group interviews in which six to eight participants, homogeneous with respect to a shared experience, behavior, or demographic characteristic, are guided through a topic guide by a trained moderator 6 . (Advice on ideal group interview size varies. The principle is to convene a group large enough to foster an open, lively discussion of the topic, and small enough to ensure all participants stay fully engaged in the process.) Over the course of discussion, the moderator is expected to pose questions, foster group participation, and probe for clarity and depth. Long a staple of market research, focus groups have become a widely used social science technique with broad applications in public health, and they are especially popular as a rapid method for assessing community norms and shared perceptions.

Focus groups have certain useful advantages during field investigations. They are highly adaptable, inexpensive to arrange and conduct, and often enjoyable for participants. Group dynamics effectively tap into collective knowledge and experience to serve as a proxy informant for the community as a whole. They are also capable of recreating a microcosm of social norms where social, moral, and emotional dimensions of topics are allowed to emerge. Skilled moderators can also exploit the tendency of small groups to seek consensus to bring out disagreements that the participants will work to resolve in a way that can lead to deeper understanding. There are also limitations on focus group methods. Lack of confidentiality during group interviews means they should not be used to explore personal experiences of a sensitive nature on ethical grounds. Participants may take it on themselves to volunteer such information, but moderators are generally encouraged to steer the conversation back to general observations to avoid putting pressure on other participants to disclose in a similar way. Similarly, FGDs are subject by design to strong social desirability biases. Qualitative study designs using focus groups sometimes add individual interviews precisely to enable participants to describe personal experiences or personal views that would be difficult or inappropriate to share in a group setting. Focus groups run the risk of producing broad but shallow analyses of issues if groups reach comfortable but superficial consensus around complex topics. This weakness can be countered by training moderators to probe effectively and challenge any consensus that sounds too simplistic or contradictory with prior knowledge. However, FGDs are surprisingly robust against the influence of strongly opinionated participants, highly adaptable, and well suited to application in study designs where systematic comparisons across different groups are called for.

Like FGDs, group KIIs rely on positive chemistry and the stimulating effects of group discussion but aim to gather expert knowledge or oversight on a particular topic rather than lived experience of embedded social actors. Group KIIs have no minimum size requirements and can involve as few as two or three participants.

Identifying Barriers and Solutions to Improved Healthcare Worker Practices in Egypt

Egypt's National Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) program undertook qualitative research to gain an understanding of the contextual behaviors and motivations of healthcare workers in complying with IPC guidelines. The study was undertaken to guide the development of effective behavior change interventions in healthcare settings to improve IPC compliance.

Key informant interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in two governorates among cleaning staff, nursing staff, and physicians in different types of healthcare facilities. The findings highlighted social and cultural barriers to IPC compliance, enabling the IPC program to design responses. For example,

• Informants expressed difficulty in complying with IPC measures that forced them to act outside their normal roles in an ingrained hospital culture. Response: Role models and champions were introduced to help catalyze change.
• Informants described fatalistic attitudes that undermined energy and interest in modifying behavior. Response: Accordingly, interventions affirming institutional commitment to change while challenging fatalistic assumptions were developed.
• Informants did not perceive IPC as effective. Response: Trainings were amended to include scientific evidence justifying IPC practices.
• Informants perceived hygiene as something they took pride in and were judged on. Response: Public recognition of optimal IPC practice was introduced to tap into positive social desirability and professional pride in maintaining hygiene in the work environment.

Qualitative research identified sources of resistance to quality clinical practice in Egypt's healthcare settings and culturally appropriate responses to overcome that resistance.

Source: Anna Leena Lohiniva, personal communication.

Visualization Methods

Visualization methods have been developed as a way to enhance participation and empower interviewees relative to researchers during group data collection 7 . Visualization methods involve asking participants to engage in collective problem- solving of challenges expressed through group production of maps, diagrams, or other images. For example, participants from the community might be asked to sketch a map of their community and to highlight features of relevance to the research topic (e.g., access to health facilities or sites of risk concentrations). Body diagramming is another visualization tool in which community members are asked to depict how and where a health threat affects the human body as a way of understanding folk conceptions of health, disease, treatment, and prevention. Ensuing debate and dialogue regarding construction of images can be recorded and analyzed in conjunction with the visual image itself. Visualization exercises were initially designed to accommodate groups the size of entire communities, but they can work equally well with smaller groups corresponding to the size of FGDs or group KIIs.

Sampling and Recruitment for Qualitative Research

Selecting a sample of study participants.

Fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches to research emerge most clearly in the practice of sampling and recruitment of study participants. Qualitative samples are typically small and purposive. In-depth interview informants are usually selected on the basis of unique characteristics or personal experiences that make them exemplary for the study, if not typical in other respects. Key informants are selected for their unique knowledge or influence in the study domain. Focus group mobilization often seeks participants who are typical with respect to others in the community having similar exposure or shared characteristics. Often, however, participants in qualitative studies are selected because they are exceptional rather than simply representative. Their value lies not in their generalizability but in their ability to generate insight into the key questions driving the study.

Determining Sample Size

Sample size determination for qualitative studies also follows a different logic than that used for probability sample surveys. For example, whereas some qualitative methods specify ideal ranges of participants that constitute a valid observation (e.g., focus groups), there are no rules on how many observations it takes to attain valid results. In theory, sample size in qualitative designs should be determined by the saturation principle , where interviews are conducted until additional interviews yield no additional insights into the topic of research 8 . Practically speaking, designing a study with a range in number of interviews is advisable for providing a level of flexibility if additional interviews are needed to reach clear conclusions.

Recruiting Study Participants

Recruitment strategies for qualitative studies typically involve some degree of participant self-selection (e.g., advertising in public spaces for interested participants) and purposive selection (e.g., identification of key informants). Purposive selection in community settings often requires authorization from local authorities and assistance from local mobilizers before the informed consent process can begin. Clearly specifying eligibility criteria is crucial for minimizing the tendency of study mobilizers to apply their own filters regarding who reflects the community in the best light. In addition to formal eligibility criteria, character traits (e.g., articulate and interested in participating) and convenience (e.g., not too far away) are legitimate considerations for whom to include in the sample. Accommodations to personality and convenience help to ensure the small number of interviews in a typical qualitative design yields maximum value for minimum investment. This is one reason why random sampling of qualitative informants is not only unnecessary but also potentially counterproductive.

Managing, Condensing, Displaying, and Interpreting Qualitative Data

Analysis of qualitative data can be divided into four stages 9 : data management, data condensation, data display, and drawing and verifying conclusions.

Managing Qualitative Data

From the outset, developing a clear organization system for qualitative data is important. Ideally, naming conventions for original data files and subsequent analysis should be recorded in a data dictionary file that includes dates, locations, defining individual or group characteristics, interviewer characteristics, and other defining features. Digital recordings of interviews or visualization products should be reviewed to ensure fidelity of analyzed data to original observations. If ethics agreements require that no names or identifying characteristics be recorded, all individual names must be removed from final transcriptions before analysis begins. If data are analyzed by using textual data analysis software, maintaining careful version control over the data files is crucial, especially when multiple coders are involved.

Condensing Qualitative Data

Condensing refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, and abstracting the data available at the time of the original observation, then transforming the condensed data into a data set that can be analyzed. In qualitative research, most of the time investment required to complete a study comes after the fieldwork is complete. A single hour of taped individual interview can take a full day to transcribe and additional time to translate if necessary. Group interviews can take even longer because of the difficulty of transcribing active group input. Each stage of data condensation involves multiple decisions that require clear rules and close supervision. A typical challenge is finding the right balance between fidelity to the rhythm and texture of original language and clarity of the translated version in the language of analysis. For example, discussions among groups with little or no education should not emerge after the transcription (and translation) process sounding like university graduates. Judgment must be exercised about which terms should be translated and which terms should be kept in vernacular because there is no appropriate term in English to capture the richness of its meaning.

Displaying Qualitative Data

After the initial condensation, qualitative analysis depends on how the data are displayed. Decisions regarding how data are summarized and laid out to facilitate comparison influence the depth and detail of the investigation's conclusions. Displays might range from full verbatim transcripts of interviews to bulleted summaries or distilled summaries of interview notes. In a field setting, a useful and commonly used display format is an overview chart in which key themes or research questions are listed in rows in a word processer table or in a spreadsheet and individual informant or group entry characteristics are listed across columns. Overview charts are useful because they allow easy, systematic comparison of results.

Drawing and Verifying Conclusions

Analyzing qualitative data is an iterative and ideally interactive process that leads to rigorous and systematic interpretation of textual or visual data. At least four common steps are involved:

• Reading and rereading. The core of qualitative analysis is careful, systematic, and repeated reading of text to identify consistent themes and interconnections emerging from the data. The act of repeated reading inevitably yields new themes, connections, and deeper meanings from the first reading. Reading the full text of interviews multiple times before subdividing according to coded themes is key to appreciating the full context and flow of each interview before subdividing and extracting coded sections of text for separate analysis.
• Coding. A common technique in qualitative analysis involves developing codes for labeling sections of text for selective retrieval in later stages of analysis and verification. Different approaches can be used for textual coding. One approach, structural coding , follows the structure of the interview guide. Another approach, thematic coding , labels common themes that appear across interviews, whether by design of the topic guide or emerging themes assigned based on further analysis. To avoid the problem of shift and drift in codes across time or multiple coders, qualitative investigators should develop a standard codebook with written definitions and rules about when codes should start and stop. Coding is also an iterative process in which new codes that emerge from repeated reading are layered on top of existing codes. Development and refinement of the codebook is inseparably part of the analysis.
• Analyzing and writing memos. As codes are being developed and refined, answers to the original research question should begin to emerge. Coding can facilitate that process through selective text retrieval during which similarities within and between coding categories can be extracted and compared systematically. Because no p values can be derived in qualitative analyses to mark the transition from tentative to firm conclusions, standard practice is to write memos to record evolving insights and emerging patterns in the data and how they relate to the original research questions. Writing memos is intended to catalyze further thinking about the data, thus initiating new connections that can lead to further coding and deeper understanding.
• Verifying conclusions. Analysis rigor depends as much on the thoroughness of the cross-examination and attempt to find alternative conclusions as on the quality of original conclusions. Cross-examining conclusions can occur in different ways. One way is encouraging regular interaction between analysts to challenge conclusions and pose alternative explanations for the same data. Another way is quizzing the data (i.e., retrieving coded segments by using Boolean logic to systematically compare code contents where they overlap with other codes or informant characteristics). If alternative explanations for initial conclusions are more difficult to justify, confidence in those conclusions is strengthened.

Coding and Analysis Requirements

Above all, qualitative data analysis requires sufficient time and immersion in the data. Computer textual software programs can facilitate selective text retrieval and quizzing the data, but discerning patterns and arriving at conclusions can be done only by the analysts. This requirement involves intensive reading and rereading, developing codebooks and coding, discussing and debating, revising codebooks, and recoding as needed until clear patterns emerge from the data. Although quality and depth of analysis is usually proportional to the time invested, a number of techniques, including some mentioned earlier, can be used to expedite analysis under field conditions.

• Detailed notes instead of full transcriptions. Assigning one or two note-takers to an interview can be considered where the time needed for full transcription and translation is not feasible. Even if plans are in place for full transcriptions after fieldwork, asking note-takers to submit organized summary notes is a useful technique for getting real-time feedback on interview content and making adjustments to topic guides or interviewer training as needed.
• Summary overview charts for thematic coding. (See discussion under "Displaying Data.") If there is limited time for full transcription and/or systematic coding of text interviews using textual analysis software in the field, an overview chart is a useful technique for rapid manual coding.
• Thematic extract files. This is a slightly expanded version of manual thematic coding that is useful when full transcriptions of interviews are available. With use of a word processing program, files can be sectioned according to themes, or separate files can be created for each theme. Relevant extracts from transcripts or analyst notes can be copied and pasted into files or sections of files corresponding to each theme. This is particularly useful for storing appropriate quotes that can be used to illustrate thematic conclusions in final reports or manuscripts.
• Teamwork. Qualitative analysis can be performed by a single analyst, but it is usually beneficial to involve more than one. Qualitative conclusions involve subjective judgment calls. Having more than one coder or analyst working on a project enables more interactive discussion and debate before reaching consensus on conclusions.
• Systematic coding.
• Selective retrieval of coded segments.
• Verifying conclusions ("quizzing the data").
• Working on larger data sets with multiple separate files.
• Working in teams with multiple coders to allow intercoder reliability to be measured and monitored.

The most widely used software packages (e.g., NVivo [QSR International Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, VIC, Australia] and ATLAS.ti [Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany]) evolved to include sophisticated analytic features covering a wide array of applications but are relatively expensive in terms of license cost and initial investment in time and training. A promising development is the advent of free or low-cost Web-based services (e.g., Dedoose [Sociocultural Research Consultants LLC, Manhattan Beach, CA]) that have many of the same analytic features on a more affordable subscription basis and that enable local research counterparts to remain engaged through the analysis phase (see Teamwork criteria). The start-up costs of computer-assisted analysis need to be weighed against their analytic benefits, which tend to decline with the volume and complexity of data to be analyzed. For rapid situational analyses or small scale qualitative studies (e.g. fewer than 30 observations as an informal rule of thumb), manual coding and analysis using word processing or spreadsheet programs is faster and sufficient to enable rigorous analysis and verification of conclusions.

Qualitative methods belong to a branch of social science inquiry that emphasizes the importance of context, subjective meanings, and motivations in understanding human behavior patterns. Qualitative approaches definitionally rely on open-ended, semistructured, non-numeric strategies for asking questions and recording responses. Conclusions are drawn from systematic visual or textual analysis involving repeated reading, coding, and organizing information into structured and emerging themes. Because textual analysis is relatively time-and skill-intensive, qualitative samples tend to be small and purposively selected to yield the maximum amount of information from the minimum amount of data collection. Although qualitative approaches cannot provide representative or generalizable findings in a statistical sense, they can offer an unparalleled level of detail, nuance, and naturalistic insight into the chosen subject of study. Qualitative methods enable investigators to “hear the voice” of the researched in a way that questionnaire methods, even with the occasional open-ended response option, cannot.

Whether or when to use qualitative methods in field epidemiology studies ultimately depends on the nature of the public health question to be answered. Qualitative approaches make sense when a study question about behavior patterns or program performance leads with why, why not , or how . Similarly, they are appropriate when the answer to the study question depends on understanding the problem from the perspective of social actors in real-life settings or when the object of study cannot be adequately captured, quantified, or categorized through a battery of closed-ended survey questions (e.g., stigma or the foundation of health beliefs). Another justification for qualitative methods occurs when the topic is especially sensitive or subject to strong social desirability biases that require developing trust with the informant and persistent probing to reach the truth. Finally, qualitative methods make sense when the study question is exploratory in nature, where this approach enables the investigator the freedom and flexibility to adjust topic guides and probe beyond the original topic guides.

Given that the conditions just described probably apply more often than not in everyday field epidemiology, it might be surprising that such approaches are not incorporated more routinely into standard epidemiologic training. Part of the answer might have to do with the subjective element in qualitative sampling and analysis that seems at odds with core scientific values of objectivity. Part of it might have to do with the skill requirements for good qualitative interviewing, which are generally more difficult to find than those required for routine survey interviewing.

For the field epidemiologist unfamiliar with qualitative study design, it is important to emphasize that obtaining important insights from applying basic approaches is possible, even without a seasoned team of qualitative researchers on hand to do the work. The flexibility of qualitative methods also tends to make them forgiving with practice and persistence. Beyond the required study approvals and ethical clearances, the basic essential requirements for collecting qualitative data in field settings start with an interviewer having a strong command of the research question, basic interactive and language skills, and a healthy sense of curiosity, armed with a simple open-ended topic guide and a tape recorder or note-taker to capture the key points of the discussion. Readily available manuals on qualitative study design, methods, and analysis can provide additional guidance to improve the quality of data collection and analysis.

• Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice . 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2015.
• Hennink M, Hutter I, Bailey A. Qualitative research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2010.
• Lincoln YS, Guba EG. The constructivist credo . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press; 2013.
• Mack N, Woodsong C, MacQueen KM, Guest G, Namey E. Qualitative research methods: a data collectors field guide. https://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/Qualitative%20Research%20Methods%20-%20A%20Data%20Collector%27s%20Field%20Guide.pdf
• Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009:230–43.
• Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2014.
• Margolis E, Pauwels L. The Sage handbook of visual research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011.
• Mason M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum : Qualitative Social Research/Sozialforschung. 2010;11(3).
• Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2014.
• Silver C, Lewins A. Using software in qualitative research: a step-by-step guide . Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage: 2014.

Field Epi Manual

The CDC Field Epidemiology Manual is a definitive guide to investigating acute public health events on the ground and in real time.

Public Health

• COVID-19 Resources This link opens in a new window
• Define Your Topic
• Searching Strategies
• Types of Resources
• Other Types of Scholarly Articles
• Finding Op-Eds
• Literature Review
• Qualitative Research
• Web Resources
• LibX This link opens in a new window
• Reload Button
• Virtual Private Network (VPN)
• Google Scholar Settings
• Articles & Databases
• Data & Statistics This link opens in a new window
• Data Visualization Tools This link opens in a new window
• Films and videos
• Infographics This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Reviews This link opens in a new window
• Stay Current with Research
• Tenure and Promotion Resources This link opens in a new window
• Theses & Dissertations This link opens in a new window
• Bills, Laws and Public Policies
• Biostatistics
• Complementary & Alternative Medicine
• Consumer Health
• Epidemiology
• Evidence-Based Medicine
• Environmental Health Law
• Fact-checking resources
• Family Science
• Global Health
• Government Information
• Health Behavior Theory
• History of Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Kinesiology
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
• Statistics This link opens in a new window
• Tests and Measurement Instruments
• Citation Styles
• Citation Managers
• Academic Integrity
• Books on different types of professional writing
• Health Sciences Libraries in DC area
• Library Award for Undergraduate Research
• For faculty
• Class materials

Search Filters

Some databases have pre-formulated search filters that are useful for retrieving relevant materials. While results are not necessarily comprehensive, they often provide a good point of departure for developing your own search strategies.

InterTASC ISSG Search Filter Resource A list of references describing filters to identify qualitative research MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. From Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York and National Institute for Health Research, UK.

Search Strategies

Search Strategies 

• Use the following keywords to identify qualitative research. These keywprds will search the titles, abstracts and keywords of records held in the databases. Use quotations to search as a phrase:

Use controlled vocabulary

Databases use controlled vocabulary to categorize each record stored. The terms they use are known as  thesaurus terms or subject headings .  The thesaurus terms vary for each database according to their indexing system.

For example, qualitative research is indexed in PubMed as "Qualitative Research" or "Nursing Methodology Research", while in CINAHL their subject heading "Qualitative Studies" is complemented by more detailed terms, including "Phenomenological Research" and "Grounded Theory".

Tutorials for searching subject headings

Use qualitative research filters

Qualitative research filters are pre-formulated search strategies that have been constructed by librarians to help you retrieve articles in databases that deal with qualitative research. You can use the filter and then combine the results with your subject.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PubMed Topic Specific Queries

• Go to  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
• Under PubMed Tools , click Topic Specific Queries
• In the left column, click   Health Services Research (HSR) Queries
• Enter your search topic
• Under Category select Qualitative Research  
• Go to PsychINFO database in Database Finder .
• Enter your topic in the search box.
• In right column, under Methodoly, MATHEMATICAL MODEL , select Qualitative study .
• Under Refine Search section on the left, limit further your search under Methodology drop down menu.

Modify your search strategy accordingly by using thesaurus terms, such as qualitative research, grounded theory, interviews, observation methods, etc.

Qualitative Research Books - Public Health

Qualitative Research Books - Theory

• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Web Resources >>
• Last Updated: Nov 7, 2024 2:04 PM
• URL: https://lib.guides.umd.edu/PublicHealth

PH717 Module 1B - Descriptive Tools

Descriptive epidemiology & descriptive statistics.

•   Page:
•   1  
• |   2  
• |   3  
• |   4  
• |   5  
• |   6  
• |   7  
• |   8  
• |   9  

Quantitative and Qualitative Methods for Public Health

This course focuses on quantitative methods, which are designed to precisely estimate population parameters and measure the association between biologic, social, environmental, and behavioral factors and health conditions in order to define the determinants of health and disease and, ultimately, to understand causal pathways.

However, it is important to acknowledge the importance of qualitative methods which provide a means of understanding public health problems in greater depth by providing contextual information regarding a population's beliefs, opinions, norms, and behaviors. This type of information is difficult to capture using traditional quantitative methods, yet it can be vitally important for understanding the "why" for many health problems and also the "how" in terms of how to achieve improvements in health outcomes.

These two approaches might be thought of as the positivist and the constructivist approaches. In positivist research data are more easily quantified, but they are disconnected from the context in which they occur. For example, people of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to smoke tobacco, but the data collected does not indicate why. However, with a constructivist approach, the exposures that people are subjected to (or choose) are better understood in the context of their personal circumstances and the significance that people attribute to things in their environment.

Qualitative methods provide a means of understanding health problems and potential barriers and solutions in greater detail, and they provide an opportunity to understand the "how" and "why" and to identify overlooked issues and themes.

The table below, from the introductory course on fundamentals of public health, highlights some of the major differences between quantitative and qualitative research.

return to top | previous page

Content ©2020. All Rights Reserved. Date last modified: September 10, 2020. Wayne W. LaMorte, MD, PhD, MPH

Doing good qualitative research in public health: not as easy as it looks

Affiliation.

• 1 Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Australia. [email protected]
• PMID: 19735621
• DOI: 10.1071/NB09018

In this paper, we discuss qualitative research for public health professionals. Quality matters in qualitative research, but the principles by which it is judged are critically different from those used to judge epidemiology. Compared to quantitative research, good quality qualitative studies serve different aims, answer distinct research questions and have their own logic for sampling, data collection and analysis. There is, however, no need for antagonism between qualitative research and epidemiology; the two are complementary. With theoretical and methodological guidance from experienced qualitative researchers, public health professionals can learn how to make the most of qualitative research for themselves.

• Public Health*
• Qualitative Research*

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

Loraine busetto, wolfgang wick, christoph gumbinger.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding author.

Received 2020 Jan 30; Accepted 2020 Apr 22; Collection date 2020.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions, and focussing on intervention improvement. The most common methods of data collection are document study, (non-) participant observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. For data analysis, field-notes and audio-recordings are transcribed into protocols and transcripts, and coded using qualitative data management software. Criteria such as checklists, reflexivity, sampling strategies, piloting, co-coding, member-checking and stakeholder involvement can be used to enhance and assess the quality of the research conducted. Using qualitative in addition to quantitative designs will equip us with better tools to address a greater range of research problems, and to fill in blind spots in current neurological research and practice.

Keywords: Qualitative research, Mixed methods, Quality assessment

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of qualitative research methods, including hands-on information on how they can be used, reported and assessed. This article is intended for beginning qualitative researchers in the health sciences as well as experienced quantitative researchers who wish to broaden their understanding of qualitative research.

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is defined as “the study of the nature of phenomena”, including “their quality, different manifestations, the context in which they appear or the perspectives from which they can be perceived” , but excluding “their range, frequency and place in an objectively determined chain of cause and effect” [ 1 ]. This formal definition can be complemented with a more pragmatic rule of thumb: qualitative research generally includes data in form of words rather than numbers [ 2 ].

Why conduct qualitative research?

Because some research questions cannot be answered using (only) quantitative methods. For example, one Australian study addressed the issue of why patients from Aboriginal communities often present late or not at all to specialist services offered by tertiary care hospitals. Using qualitative interviews with patients and staff, it found one of the most significant access barriers to be transportation problems, including some towns and communities simply not having a bus service to the hospital [ 3 ]. A quantitative study could have measured the number of patients over time or even looked at possible explanatory factors – but only those previously known or suspected to be of relevance. To discover reasons for observed patterns, especially the invisible or surprising ones, qualitative designs are needed.

While qualitative research is common in other fields, it is still relatively underrepresented in health services research. The latter field is more traditionally rooted in the evidence-based-medicine paradigm, as seen in " research that involves testing the effectiveness of various strategies to achieve changes in clinical practice, preferably applying randomised controlled trial study designs (...) " [ 4 ]. This focus on quantitative research and specifically randomised controlled trials (RCT) is visible in the idea of a hierarchy of research evidence which assumes that some research designs are objectively better than others, and that choosing a "lesser" design is only acceptable when the better ones are not practically or ethically feasible [ 5 , 6 ]. Others, however, argue that an objective hierarchy does not exist, and that, instead, the research design and methods should be chosen to fit the specific research question at hand – "questions before methods" [ 2 , 7 – 9 ]. This means that even when an RCT is possible, some research problems require a different design that is better suited to addressing them. Arguing in JAMA, Berwick uses the example of rapid response teams in hospitals, which he describes as " a complex, multicomponent intervention – essentially a process of social change" susceptible to a range of different context factors including leadership or organisation history. According to him, "[in] such complex terrain, the RCT is an impoverished way to learn. Critics who use it as a truth standard in this context are incorrect" [ 8 ] . Instead of limiting oneself to RCTs, Berwick recommends embracing a wider range of methods , including qualitative ones, which for "these specific applications, (...) are not compromises in learning how to improve; they are superior" [ 8 ].

Research problems that can be approached particularly well using qualitative methods include assessing complex multi-component interventions or systems (of change), addressing questions beyond “what works”, towards “what works for whom when, how and why”, and focussing on intervention improvement rather than accreditation [ 7 , 9 – 12 ]. Using qualitative methods can also help shed light on the “softer” side of medical treatment. For example, while quantitative trials can measure the costs and benefits of neuro-oncological treatment in terms of survival rates or adverse effects, qualitative research can help provide a better understanding of patient or caregiver stress, visibility of illness or out-of-pocket expenses.

How to conduct qualitative research?

Given that qualitative research is characterised by flexibility, openness and responsivity to context, the steps of data collection and analysis are not as separate and consecutive as they tend to be in quantitative research [ 13 , 14 ]. As Fossey puts it : “sampling, data collection, analysis and interpretation are related to each other in a cyclical (iterative) manner, rather than following one after another in a stepwise approach” [ 15 ]. The researcher can make educated decisions with regard to the choice of method, how they are implemented, and to which and how many units they are applied [ 13 ]. As shown in Fig.  1 , this can involve several back-and-forth steps between data collection and analysis where new insights and experiences can lead to adaption and expansion of the original plan. Some insights may also necessitate a revision of the research question and/or the research design as a whole. The process ends when saturation is achieved, i.e. when no relevant new information can be found (see also below: sampling and saturation). For reasons of transparency, it is essential for all decisions as well as the underlying reasoning to be well-documented.

Iterative research process

While it is not always explicitly addressed, qualitative methods reflect a different underlying research paradigm than quantitative research (e.g. constructivism or interpretivism as opposed to positivism). The choice of methods can be based on the respective underlying substantive theory or theoretical framework used by the researcher [ 2 ].

Data collection

The methods of qualitative data collection most commonly used in health research are document study, observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups [ 1 , 14 , 16 , 17 ].

Document study

Document study (also called document analysis) refers to the review by the researcher of written materials [ 14 ]. These can include personal and non-personal documents such as archives, annual reports, guidelines, policy documents, diaries or letters.

Observations

Observations are particularly useful to gain insights into a certain setting and actual behaviour – as opposed to reported behaviour or opinions [ 13 ]. Qualitative observations can be either participant or non-participant in nature. In participant observations, the observer is part of the observed setting, for example a nurse working in an intensive care unit [ 18 ]. In non-participant observations, the observer is “on the outside looking in”, i.e. present in but not part of the situation, trying not to influence the setting by their presence. Observations can be planned (e.g. for 3 h during the day or night shift) or ad hoc (e.g. as soon as a stroke patient arrives at the emergency room). During the observation, the observer takes notes on everything or certain pre-determined parts of what is happening around them, for example focusing on physician-patient interactions or communication between different professional groups. Written notes can be taken during or after the observations, depending on feasibility (which is usually lower during participant observations) and acceptability (e.g. when the observer is perceived to be judging the observed). Afterwards, these field notes are transcribed into observation protocols. If more than one observer was involved, field notes are taken independently, but notes can be consolidated into one protocol after discussions. Advantages of conducting observations include minimising the distance between the researcher and the researched, the potential discovery of topics that the researcher did not realise were relevant and gaining deeper insights into the real-world dimensions of the research problem at hand [ 18 ].

Semi-structured interviews

Hijmans & Kuyper describe qualitative interviews as “an exchange with an informal character, a conversation with a goal” [ 19 ]. Interviews are used to gain insights into a person’s subjective experiences, opinions and motivations – as opposed to facts or behaviours [ 13 ]. Interviews can be distinguished by the degree to which they are structured (i.e. a questionnaire), open (e.g. free conversation or autobiographical interviews) or semi-structured [ 2 , 13 ]. Semi-structured interviews are characterized by open-ended questions and the use of an interview guide (or topic guide/list) in which the broad areas of interest, sometimes including sub-questions, are defined [ 19 ]. The pre-defined topics in the interview guide can be derived from the literature, previous research or a preliminary method of data collection, e.g. document study or observations. The topic list is usually adapted and improved at the start of the data collection process as the interviewer learns more about the field [ 20 ]. Across interviews the focus on the different (blocks of) questions may differ and some questions may be skipped altogether (e.g. if the interviewee is not able or willing to answer the questions or for concerns about the total length of the interview) [ 20 ]. Qualitative interviews are usually not conducted in written format as it impedes on the interactive component of the method [ 20 ]. In comparison to written surveys, qualitative interviews have the advantage of being interactive and allowing for unexpected topics to emerge and to be taken up by the researcher. This can also help overcome a provider or researcher-centred bias often found in written surveys, which by nature, can only measure what is already known or expected to be of relevance to the researcher. Interviews can be audio- or video-taped; but sometimes it is only feasible or acceptable for the interviewer to take written notes [ 14 , 16 , 20 ].

Focus groups

Focus groups are group interviews to explore participants’ expertise and experiences, including explorations of how and why people behave in certain ways [ 1 ]. Focus groups usually consist of 6–8 people and are led by an experienced moderator following a topic guide or “script” [ 21 ]. They can involve an observer who takes note of the non-verbal aspects of the situation, possibly using an observation guide [ 21 ]. Depending on researchers’ and participants’ preferences, the discussions can be audio- or video-taped and transcribed afterwards [ 21 ]. Focus groups are useful for bringing together homogeneous (to a lesser extent heterogeneous) groups of participants with relevant expertise and experience on a given topic on which they can share detailed information [ 21 ]. Focus groups are a relatively easy, fast and inexpensive method to gain access to information on interactions in a given group, i.e. “the sharing and comparing” among participants [ 21 ]. Disadvantages include less control over the process and a lesser extent to which each individual may participate. Moreover, focus group moderators need experience, as do those tasked with the analysis of the resulting data. Focus groups can be less appropriate for discussing sensitive topics that participants might be reluctant to disclose in a group setting [ 13 ]. Moreover, attention must be paid to the emergence of “groupthink” as well as possible power dynamics within the group, e.g. when patients are awed or intimidated by health professionals.

Choosing the “right” method

As explained above, the school of thought underlying qualitative research assumes no objective hierarchy of evidence and methods. This means that each choice of single or combined methods has to be based on the research question that needs to be answered and a critical assessment with regard to whether or to what extent the chosen method can accomplish this – i.e. the “fit” between question and method [ 14 ]. It is necessary for these decisions to be documented when they are being made, and to be critically discussed when reporting methods and results.

Let us assume that our research aim is to examine the (clinical) processes around acute endovascular treatment (EVT), from the patient’s arrival at the emergency room to recanalization, with the aim to identify possible causes for delay and/or other causes for sub-optimal treatment outcome. As a first step, we could conduct a document study of the relevant standard operating procedures (SOPs) for this phase of care – are they up-to-date and in line with current guidelines? Do they contain any mistakes, irregularities or uncertainties that could cause delays or other problems? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the results have to be interpreted based on what they are: a written outline of what care processes in this hospital should look like. If we want to know what they actually look like in practice, we can conduct observations of the processes described in the SOPs. These results can (and should) be analysed in themselves, but also in comparison to the results of the document analysis, especially as regards relevant discrepancies. Do the SOPs outline specific tests for which no equipment can be observed or tasks to be performed by specialized nurses who are not present during the observation? It might also be possible that the written SOP is outdated, but the actual care provided is in line with current best practice. In order to find out why these discrepancies exist, it can be useful to conduct interviews. Are the physicians simply not aware of the SOPs (because their existence is limited to the hospital’s intranet) or do they actively disagree with them or does the infrastructure make it impossible to provide the care as described? Another rationale for adding interviews is that some situations (or all of their possible variations for different patient groups or the day, night or weekend shift) cannot practically or ethically be observed. In this case, it is possible to ask those involved to report on their actions – being aware that this is not the same as the actual observation. A senior physician’s or hospital manager’s description of certain situations might differ from a nurse’s or junior physician’s one, maybe because they intentionally misrepresent facts or maybe because different aspects of the process are visible or important to them. In some cases, it can also be relevant to consider to whom the interviewee is disclosing this information – someone they trust, someone they are otherwise not connected to, or someone they suspect or are aware of being in a potentially “dangerous” power relationship to them. Lastly, a focus group could be conducted with representatives of the relevant professional groups to explore how and why exactly they provide care around EVT. The discussion might reveal discrepancies (between SOPs and actual care or between different physicians) and motivations to the researchers as well as to the focus group members that they might not have been aware of themselves. For the focus group to deliver relevant information, attention has to be paid to its composition and conduct, for example, to make sure that all participants feel safe to disclose sensitive or potentially problematic information or that the discussion is not dominated by (senior) physicians only. The resulting combination of data collection methods is shown in Fig.  2 .

Possible combination of data collection methods

Attributions for icons: “Book” by Serhii Smirnov, “Interview” by Adrien Coquet, FR, “Magnifying Glass” by anggun, ID, “Business communication” by Vectors Market; all from the Noun Project

The combination of multiple data source as described for this example can be referred to as “triangulation”, in which multiple measurements are carried out from different angles to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study [ 22 , 23 ].

Data analysis

To analyse the data collected through observations, interviews and focus groups these need to be transcribed into protocols and transcripts (see Fig.  3 ). Interviews and focus groups can be transcribed verbatim , with or without annotations for behaviour (e.g. laughing, crying, pausing) and with or without phonetic transcription of dialects and filler words, depending on what is expected or known to be relevant for the analysis. In the next step, the protocols and transcripts are coded , that is, marked (or tagged, labelled) with one or more short descriptors of the content of a sentence or paragraph [ 2 , 15 , 23 ]. Jansen describes coding as “connecting the raw data with “theoretical” terms” [ 20 ]. In a more practical sense, coding makes raw data sortable. This makes it possible to extract and examine all segments describing, say, a tele-neurology consultation from multiple data sources (e.g. SOPs, emergency room observations, staff and patient interview). In a process of synthesis and abstraction, the codes are then grouped, summarised and/or categorised [ 15 , 20 ]. The end product of the coding or analysis process is a descriptive theory of the behavioural pattern under investigation [ 20 ]. The coding process is performed using qualitative data management software, the most common ones being InVivo, MaxQDA and Atlas.ti. It should be noted that these are data management tools which support the analysis performed by the researcher(s) [ 14 ].

From data collection to data analysis

Attributions for icons: see Fig. 2 , also “Speech to text” by Trevor Dsouza, “Field Notes” by Mike O’Brien, US, “Voice Record” by ProSymbols, US, “Inspection” by Made, AU, and “Cloud” by Graphic Tigers; all from the Noun Project

How to report qualitative research?

Protocols of qualitative research can be published separately and in advance of the study results. However, the aim is not the same as in RCT protocols, i.e. to pre-define and set in stone the research questions and primary or secondary endpoints. Rather, it is a way to describe the research methods in detail, which might not be possible in the results paper given journals’ word limits. Qualitative research papers are usually longer than their quantitative counterparts to allow for deep understanding and so-called “thick description”. In the methods section, the focus is on transparency of the methods used, including why, how and by whom they were implemented in the specific study setting, so as to enable a discussion of whether and how this may have influenced data collection, analysis and interpretation. The results section usually starts with a paragraph outlining the main findings, followed by more detailed descriptions of, for example, the commonalities, discrepancies or exceptions per category [ 20 ]. Here it is important to support main findings by relevant quotations, which may add information, context, emphasis or real-life examples [ 20 , 23 ]. It is subject to debate in the field whether it is relevant to state the exact number or percentage of respondents supporting a certain statement (e.g. “Five interviewees expressed negative feelings towards XYZ”) [ 21 ].

How to combine qualitative with quantitative research?

Qualitative methods can be combined with other methods in multi- or mixed methods designs, which “[employ] two or more different methods [ …] within the same study or research program rather than confining the research to one single method” [ 24 ]. Reasons for combining methods can be diverse, including triangulation for corroboration of findings, complementarity for illustration and clarification of results, expansion to extend the breadth and range of the study, explanation of (unexpected) results generated with one method with the help of another, or offsetting the weakness of one method with the strength of another [ 1 , 17 , 24 – 26 ]. The resulting designs can be classified according to when, why and how the different quantitative and/or qualitative data strands are combined. The three most common types of mixed method designs are the convergent parallel design , the explanatory sequential design and the exploratory sequential design. The designs with examples are shown in Fig.  4 .

Three common mixed methods designs

In the convergent parallel design, a qualitative study is conducted in parallel to and independently of a quantitative study, and the results of both studies are compared and combined at the stage of interpretation of results. Using the above example of EVT provision, this could entail setting up a quantitative EVT registry to measure process times and patient outcomes in parallel to conducting the qualitative research outlined above, and then comparing results. Amongst other things, this would make it possible to assess whether interview respondents’ subjective impressions of patients receiving good care match modified Rankin Scores at follow-up, or whether observed delays in care provision are exceptions or the rule when compared to door-to-needle times as documented in the registry. In the explanatory sequential design, a quantitative study is carried out first, followed by a qualitative study to help explain the results from the quantitative study. This would be an appropriate design if the registry alone had revealed relevant delays in door-to-needle times and the qualitative study would be used to understand where and why these occurred, and how they could be improved. In the exploratory design, the qualitative study is carried out first and its results help informing and building the quantitative study in the next step [ 26 ]. If the qualitative study around EVT provision had shown a high level of dissatisfaction among the staff members involved, a quantitative questionnaire investigating staff satisfaction could be set up in the next step, informed by the qualitative study on which topics dissatisfaction had been expressed. Amongst other things, the questionnaire design would make it possible to widen the reach of the research to more respondents from different (types of) hospitals, regions, countries or settings, and to conduct sub-group analyses for different professional groups.

How to assess qualitative research?

A variety of assessment criteria and lists have been developed for qualitative research, ranging in their focus and comprehensiveness [ 14 , 17 , 27 ]. However, none of these has been elevated to the “gold standard” in the field. In the following, we therefore focus on a set of commonly used assessment criteria that, from a practical standpoint, a researcher can look for when assessing a qualitative research report or paper.

Assessors should check the authors’ use of and adherence to the relevant reporting checklists (e.g. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)) to make sure all items that are relevant for this type of research are addressed [ 23 , 28 ]. Discussions of quantitative measures in addition to or instead of these qualitative measures can be a sign of lower quality of the research (paper). Providing and adhering to a checklist for qualitative research contributes to an important quality criterion for qualitative research, namely transparency [ 15 , 17 , 23 ].

Reflexivity

While methodological transparency and complete reporting is relevant for all types of research, some additional criteria must be taken into account for qualitative research. This includes what is called reflexivity, i.e. sensitivity to the relationship between the researcher and the researched, including how contact was established and maintained, or the background and experience of the researcher(s) involved in data collection and analysis. Depending on the research question and population to be researched this can be limited to professional experience, but it may also include gender, age or ethnicity [ 17 , 27 ]. These details are relevant because in qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research, the researcher as a person cannot be isolated from the research process [ 23 ]. It may influence the conversation when an interviewed patient speaks to an interviewer who is a physician, or when an interviewee is asked to discuss a gynaecological procedure with a male interviewer, and therefore the reader must be made aware of these details [ 19 ].

Sampling and saturation

The aim of qualitative sampling is for all variants of the objects of observation that are deemed relevant for the study to be present in the sample “ to see the issue and its meanings from as many angles as possible” [ 1 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 27 ] , and to ensure “information-richness [ 15 ]. An iterative sampling approach is advised, in which data collection (e.g. five interviews) is followed by data analysis, followed by more data collection to find variants that are lacking in the current sample. This process continues until no new (relevant) information can be found and further sampling becomes redundant – which is called saturation [ 1 , 15 ] . In other words: qualitative data collection finds its end point not a priori , but when the research team determines that saturation has been reached [ 29 , 30 ].

This is also the reason why most qualitative studies use deliberate instead of random sampling strategies. This is generally referred to as “ purposive sampling” , in which researchers pre-define which types of participants or cases they need to include so as to cover all variations that are expected to be of relevance, based on the literature, previous experience or theory (i.e. theoretical sampling) [ 14 , 20 ]. Other types of purposive sampling include (but are not limited to) maximum variation sampling, critical case sampling or extreme or deviant case sampling [ 2 ]. In the above EVT example, a purposive sample could include all relevant professional groups and/or all relevant stakeholders (patients, relatives) and/or all relevant times of observation (day, night and weekend shift).

Assessors of qualitative research should check whether the considerations underlying the sampling strategy were sound and whether or how researchers tried to adapt and improve their strategies in stepwise or cyclical approaches between data collection and analysis to achieve saturation [ 14 ].

Good qualitative research is iterative in nature, i.e. it goes back and forth between data collection and analysis, revising and improving the approach where necessary. One example of this are pilot interviews, where different aspects of the interview (especially the interview guide, but also, for example, the site of the interview or whether the interview can be audio-recorded) are tested with a small number of respondents, evaluated and revised [ 19 ]. In doing so, the interviewer learns which wording or types of questions work best, or which is the best length of an interview with patients who have trouble concentrating for an extended time. Of course, the same reasoning applies to observations or focus groups which can also be piloted.

Ideally, coding should be performed by at least two researchers, especially at the beginning of the coding process when a common approach must be defined, including the establishment of a useful coding list (or tree), and when a common meaning of individual codes must be established [ 23 ]. An initial sub-set or all transcripts can be coded independently by the coders and then compared and consolidated after regular discussions in the research team. This is to make sure that codes are applied consistently to the research data.

Member checking

Member checking, also called respondent validation , refers to the practice of checking back with study respondents to see if the research is in line with their views [ 14 , 27 ]. This can happen after data collection or analysis or when first results are available [ 23 ]. For example, interviewees can be provided with (summaries of) their transcripts and asked whether they believe this to be a complete representation of their views or whether they would like to clarify or elaborate on their responses [ 17 ]. Respondents’ feedback on these issues then becomes part of the data collection and analysis [ 27 ].

Stakeholder involvement

In those niches where qualitative approaches have been able to evolve and grow, a new trend has seen the inclusion of patients and their representatives not only as study participants (i.e. “members”, see above) but as consultants to and active participants in the broader research process [ 31 – 33 ]. The underlying assumption is that patients and other stakeholders hold unique perspectives and experiences that add value beyond their own single story, making the research more relevant and beneficial to researchers, study participants and (future) patients alike [ 34 , 35 ]. Using the example of patients on or nearing dialysis, a recent scoping review found that 80% of clinical research did not address the top 10 research priorities identified by patients and caregivers [ 32 , 36 ]. In this sense, the involvement of the relevant stakeholders, especially patients and relatives, is increasingly being seen as a quality indicator in and of itself.

How not to assess qualitative research

The above overview does not include certain items that are routine in assessments of quantitative research. What follows is a non-exhaustive, non-representative, experience-based list of the quantitative criteria often applied to the assessment of qualitative research, as well as an explanation of the limited usefulness of these endeavours.

Protocol adherence

Given the openness and flexibility of qualitative research, it should not be assessed by how well it adheres to pre-determined and fixed strategies – in other words: its rigidity. Instead, the assessor should look for signs of adaptation and refinement based on lessons learned from earlier steps in the research process.

Sample size

For the reasons explained above, qualitative research does not require specific sample sizes, nor does it require that the sample size be determined a priori [ 1 , 14 , 27 , 37 – 39 ]. Sample size can only be a useful quality indicator when related to the research purpose, the chosen methodology and the composition of the sample, i.e. who was included and why.

Randomisation

While some authors argue that randomisation can be used in qualitative research, this is not commonly the case, as neither its feasibility nor its necessity or usefulness has been convincingly established for qualitative research [ 13 , 27 ]. Relevant disadvantages include the negative impact of a too large sample size as well as the possibility (or probability) of selecting “ quiet, uncooperative or inarticulate individuals ” [ 17 ]. Qualitative studies do not use control groups, either.

Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks”

The concept of “interrater reliability” is sometimes used in qualitative research to assess to which extent the coding approach overlaps between the two co-coders. However, it is not clear what this measure tells us about the quality of the analysis [ 23 ]. This means that these scores can be included in qualitative research reports, preferably with some additional information on what the score means for the analysis, but it is not a requirement. Relatedly, it is not relevant for the quality or “objectivity” of qualitative research to separate those who recruited the study participants and collected and analysed the data. Experiences even show that it might be better to have the same person or team perform all of these tasks [ 20 ]. First, when researchers introduce themselves during recruitment this can enhance trust when the interview takes place days or weeks later with the same researcher. Second, when the audio-recording is transcribed for analysis, the researcher conducting the interviews will usually remember the interviewee and the specific interview situation during data analysis. This might be helpful in providing additional context information for interpretation of data, e.g. on whether something might have been meant as a joke [ 18 ].

Not being quantitative research

Being qualitative research instead of quantitative research should not be used as an assessment criterion if it is used irrespectively of the research problem at hand. Similarly, qualitative research should not be required to be combined with quantitative research per se – unless mixed methods research is judged as inherently better than single-method research. In this case, the same criterion should be applied for quantitative studies without a qualitative component.

The main take-away points of this paper are summarised in Table 1 . We aimed to show that, if conducted well, qualitative research can answer specific research questions that cannot to be adequately answered using (only) quantitative designs. Seeing qualitative and quantitative methods as equal will help us become more aware and critical of the “fit” between the research problem and our chosen methods: I can conduct an RCT to determine the reasons for transportation delays of acute stroke patients – but should I? It also provides us with a greater range of tools to tackle a greater range of research problems more appropriately and successfully, filling in the blind spots on one half of the methodological spectrum to better address the whole complexity of neurological research and practice.

Take-away-points

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations.

Endovascular treatment

Randomised Controlled Trial

Standard Operating Procedure

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research

Authors’ contributions

LB drafted the manuscript; WW and CG revised the manuscript; all authors approved the final versions.

no external funding.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• 1. Philipsen H, Vernooij-Dassen M. Kwalitatief onderzoek: nuttig, onmisbaar en uitdagend. In: PLBJ L, TCo H, editors. Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2007. pp. 5–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches . London: Sage.
• 3. Kelly J, Dwyer J, Willis E, Pekarsky B. Travelling to the city for hospital care: Access factors in country aboriginal patient journeys. Australian Journal of Rural Health. 2014;22(3):109–113. doi: 10.1111/ajr.12094. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, Cairney P. Never the twain shall meet? - a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Science. 2013;8(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-63. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou, P., Greenhalgh, T., Heneghan, C., Liberati, A., Moschetti, I., Phillips, B., & Thornton, H. (2011). The 2011 Oxford CEBM evidence levels of evidence (introductory document) . Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/2011/06/2011-oxford-cebm-levels-evidence-introductory-document/ .
• 6. Eakin JM. Educating critical qualitative health researchers in the land of the randomized controlled trial. Qualitative Inquiry. 2016;22(2):107–118. doi: 10.1177/1077800415617207. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. May A, Mathijssen J. Alternatives for RCTs in the evaluation of effectiveness of interventions!? Final report. 2015. Alternatieven voor RCT bij de evaluatie van effectiviteit van interventies!? Eindrapportage. [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Berwick DM. The science of improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2008;299(10):1182–1184. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.10.1182. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Christ TW. Scientific-based research and randomized controlled trials, the “gold” standard? Alternative paradigms and mixed methodologies. Qualitative Inquiry. 2014;20(1):72–80. doi: 10.1177/1077800413508523. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Lamont, T., Barber, N., Jd, P., Fulop, N., Garfield-Birkbeck, S., Lilford, R., Mear, L., Raine, R., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2016). New approaches to evaluating complex health and care systems. BMJ, 352:i154. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ]
• 11. Drabble SJ, O’Cathain A. Moving from Randomized Controlled Trials to Mixed Methods Intervention Evaluation. In: Hesse-Biber S, Johnson RB, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. London: Oxford University Press; 2015. pp. 406–425. [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: Addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science : IS. 2013;8:117. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-117. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Hak T. Waarnemingsmethoden in kwalitatief onderzoek. In: PLBJ L, TCo H, editors. Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2007. pp. 13–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Russell CK, Gregory DM. Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence Based Nursing. 2003;6(2):36–40. doi: 10.1136/ebn.6.2.36. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Fossey E, Harvey C, McDermott F, Davidson L. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2002;36:717–732. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). Thousand Oaks: Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative Research Methods.
• 17. Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information. 2004;22:63–75. doi: 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. van der Geest S. Participeren in ziekte en zorg: meer over kwalitatief onderzoek. Huisarts en Wetenschap. 2006;49(4):283–287. doi: 10.1007/BF03084704. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Hijmans E, Kuyper M. Het halfopen interview als onderzoeksmethode. In: PLBJ L, TCo H, editors. Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2007. pp. 43–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Jansen H. Systematiek en toepassing van de kwalitatieve survey. In: PLBJ L, TCo H, editors. Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2007. pp. 27–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Pv R, Peremans L. Exploreren met focusgroepgesprekken: de ‘stem’ van de groep onder de loep. In: PLBJ L, TCo H, editors. Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2007. pp. 53–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, Blythe J, Neville AJ. The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2014;41(5):545–547. doi: 10.1188/14.ONF.545-547. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Boeije H. Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek: Denken en doen. 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Hunter A, Brewer J. Designing Multimethod Research. In: Hesse-Biber S, Johnson RB, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. London: Oxford University Press; 2015. pp. 185–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Archibald MM, Radil AI, Zhang X, Hanson WE. Current mixed methods practices in qualitative research: A content analysis of leading journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2015;14(2):5–33. doi: 10.1177/160940691501400205. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a Mixed Methods Design. In Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
• 27. Mays N, Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320(7226):50–52. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2014;89(9):1245–1251. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C. Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity. 2018;52(4):1893–1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Moser A, Korstjens I. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice. 2018;24(1):9–18. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Marlett N, Shklarov S, Marshall D, Santana MJ, Wasylak T. Building new roles and relationships in research: A model of patient engagement research. Quality of Life Research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. 2015;24(5):1057–1067. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0845-y. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Demian MN, Lam NN, Mac-Way F, Sapir-Pichhadze R, Fernandez N. Opportunities for engaging patients in kidney research. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease. 2017;4:2054358117703070–2054358117703070. doi: 10.1177/2054358117703070. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Noyes Jane, Mclaughlin Leah, Morgan Karen, Roberts Abigail, Stephens Michael, Bourne Janette, Houlston Michael, Houlston Jessica, Thomas Sarah, Rhys Revd Gethin, Moss Bethan, Duncalf Sue, Lee Dawn, Curtis Rebecca, Madden Susanna, Walton Phillip. Designing a co‐productive study to overcome known methodological challenges in organ donation research with bereaved family members. Health Expectations. 2019;22(4):824–835. doi: 10.1111/hex.12894. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Piil K, Jarden M, Pii KH. Research agenda for life-threatening cancer. European Journal Cancer Care (Engl) 2019;28(1):e12935. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12935. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 35. Hofmann D, Ibrahim F, Rose D, Scott DL, Cope A, Wykes T, Lempp H. Expectations of new treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: Developing a patient-generated questionnaire. Health Expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2015;18(5):995–1008. doi: 10.1111/hex.12073. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 36. Jun M, Manns B, Laupacis A, Manns L, Rehal B, Crowe S, Hemmelgarn BR. Assessing the extent to which current clinical research is consistent with patient priorities: A scoping review using a case study in patients on or nearing dialysis. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease. 2015;2:35. doi: 10.1186/s40697-015-0035-z. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. Elsie Baker, S., & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough? In National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper . National Centre for Research Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf .
• 38. Sandelowski M. Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health. 1995;18(2):179–183. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770180211. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. Sim J, Saunders B, Waterfield J, Kingstone T. Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori? International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2018;21(5):619–634. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

• View on publisher site
• PDF (904.5 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Qualitative Research Inquiry and Global Public Health

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 10 September 2023
• Cite this reference work entry

• Pranee Liamputtong 2 &
• Zoe Sanipreeya Rice 3  

170 Accesses

Globally, public health issues impact the lives of individuals, families, communities, and nations. This has led public health researchers to conduct research to improve people’s health and well-being. Qualitative research rooted in social science is adopted in global public health where there is a global health problem or issue that needs to be explored. This is particularly when the health problems or issues cannot be easily analyzed using traditional quantitative approaches and when “silenced voices” are not being heard. Qualitative research is an approach researchers use to examine the health and well-being of individuals within the sociocultural contexts of their lives. Fundamentally, qualitative research is interpretive; the meanings and interpretations of the research participants are the essence of qualitative research. Qualitative research is useful for global public health in many ways. It encourages researchers to work with marginalized and vulnerable people and to address these issues within the social justice framework. The methods adopted in qualitative research embrace the lived experiences of people who occupy a variety of social spaces. This chapter discusses the value of qualitative research in global public health. It outlines some recent global public health concerns, the nature and role of qualitative inquiry, and the use of qualitative research in implementation science and evidence-based public health care.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Qualitative Research in Global Health Research

Abdulah DM, Abdulla BMO, Liamputtong P (2022) Psychological response of children to home confinement during COVID-19: a qualitative arts-based research. Int J Soc Psychiatry 67(7):761–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076402072439

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams S (2019) Identifying research questions. In: Schmidt NA, Brown JM (eds) Evidence-based practice for nurses: appraisal and application of research, 4th edn. Jones & Bartlett Learning Burlington, pp. 69–92

Google Scholar  

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2020) Australia’s health 2020 – in brief. AIHW, Canberra. Retrieved https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/2aa9f51b-dbd6-4d56-8dd4-06a10ba7cae8/aihw-aus-232.pdf.aspx?inline=true

Baum F (2016) The new public health: an Australian perspective, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Melbourne

Béland D, Cantillon B, Hick R, Moreira A (2021) Social policy in the face of a global pandemic: policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Social Policy Admin 55:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12718

Benza S, Liamputtong P (2017) Becoming an ‘Amai’: meanings and experiences of motherhood amongst Zimbabwean women living in Melbourne, Australia. Midwifery 45:72–78

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bradbury-Jones C, Breckenridge J, Clark MT, Herber OR, Wagstaff C, Taylor J (2017) The state of qualitative research in health and social science literature: a focused mapping review and synthesis. Int J Soc Res Methodol 20(6):627–645

Carroll D, Morzaria S, Sylvie B, Johnson CK, Morens D, Sumption K, Tomori O, Wacharphaueasadee S (2021) Preventing the next pandemic: the power of a global viral surveillance network. Br Med J (Online) 372(485). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n485

Chatterjee S (2021) COVID-19: tackling global pandemics through scientific and social tools. Academic Press, London

Creswell JW, Poth CN (2018) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 5th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Dawson A (2019) Meta-synthesis of qualitative research. In: Liamputtong P (ed) Handbook of research methods in health social science. Springer, Singapore, pp 785–804

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Denzin NK (2017) Critical qualitative inquiry. Qual Inq 23(1):8–16

Denzin NK, Giardina MD (2021) Collaborative futures in qualitative inquiry: research in a pandemic. Routledge, New York

Eley C, Lundgren PT, Kasza G et al (2021) Teaching young consumers in Europe: a multicentre qualitative needs assessment with educators on food hygiene and food safety. Perspect Public Health 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913920972739

FAO (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome

Fernandes S, Liamputtong P, Wollersheim D (2014) What makes people sick? Burmese refugee children’s perceptions of health and illness. Health Promot Int 30(1):151–161

Flick U (2018) Triangulation. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 5th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 444–461

Flores HL, Amiri A (2019) CE: addressing food insecurity in vulnerable populations. Am J Nurs 119:38–45

Goldmann E, Galea S (2014) Mental health consequences of disasters. Annu Rev Public Health 35:169–183

Greenhalgh TM, Bidewell J, Crisp E, Lambros A, Warland J (2020) Understanding research methods for evidence-based practice in health, 2nd edn. Milton, Queensland, Wiley

Grypdonck MHF (2006) Qualitative health research in the era of evidence-based practice. Qual Health Res 16(10):1371–1385

Hannes K, Bennett S (2017) Understanding evidence from qualitative research. In: Hoffman T, Bennett S, Del Mar C (eds) Evidence-based practice across the health professions, 3rd edn. Elsevier Australia, Chatswood, pp 226–247

Hawker S, Payne S, Kerr C, Hardey M, Powell J (2002) Appraising the evidence: reviewing disparate data systematically. Qual Health Res 12(9):1284–1299

Hernández-Marrero P, Martins Pereira S, Araújo J, Sofia Carvalho A (2018) Ethical challenges of informed consent, decision-making capacity, and vulnerability in clinical dementia research. In: Hernández-Marrero P, Martins Pereira S, Araújo J, Sofia Carvalho A (eds) Ethics and integrity in health and life sciences research: advances in research ethics and integrity, vol 4, pp 147–168

Hesse-Biber SN (2017) The practice of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

HIVGov (2021) The global HIV/AIDS epidemic. Retrieved from https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/global-statistics

Houser J (2015) Nursing research reading: using and crafting evidence, 3rd edn. Jones & Bartlett Leaning, Sunbury

Isaacs AN (2014) An overview of qualitative research methodology for public health researchers. Int J Med Publ Health 4(4):318–323

Jack SM (2006) Utility of qualitative research findings in evidence-based public health practice. Public Health Nursing 23(3):277–83.

Joseph J, Liamputtong P, Brodribb W (2019) The use of drawing method and infant feeding practice with refugee mothers: from the lends of settlement. In: Liamputtong P (ed) Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Springer Nature, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_44-1

Leavy P (ed) (2019) Handbook of arts-based research. The Guilford Press, New York

Liamputtong P (2007) Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. Sage, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Liamputtong P (2010) Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Liamputtong P (2020) Qualitative research methods, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Melbourne

Liamputtong P (2022) Introducing evidence-based practice and health. In Liamputtong, P. (ed.), Research methods and evidence-based practice, 4th edn. Oxford University Press: Melbourne

Liamputtong P, Benza S (2019) ‘Being able to bear a child’: insights from Zimbabwean women in Melbourne. Women Birth 32(2):e216–e222

Liamputtong P, Fernandez S (2015) The drawing method and Burmese refugee children’s perceptions of health and illness. Australas J Early Childhood 40(1):23–32

Liamputtong P, Rice ZS (2021) Qualitative research inquiry in global health. In: Haring R, Kickbusch I, Ganten D, Moeti M (eds) Handbook of global health. Springer Nature, Cham

Liamputtong P, Rice ZS (2022) Qualitative inquiry and inclusive research methods. In: Liamputtong P (ed) Handbook of social inclusion, research and practices in the health and social sciences. Springer, Cham

Liamputtong P, Suwankhong D (2015) Therapeutic landscapes and living with breast cancer: the lived experiences of Thai women. Soc Sci Med 128:263–271

Long CO (2015) Other sources of evidence. In: Schmidt NA, Brown JM (eds) Evidence-based practice for nurses: appraisal and application of research, 3rd edn. Jones & Bartlett Learning, Burlington, pp 320–340

Lozano-Sufrategui L, Pringle A, Carless D et al (2020) A qualitative study of men’s behavioural changes during weight loss maintenance. Perspect Public Health 140(6):317–326, 9

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Madhav N, Oppenheim B, Gallivan M, Mulembakani P, Rubin E, Wolfe N (2018) Pandemics: risks, impacts, and mitigation. In: Jamieson DT, Gelband H, Horton S, Jha P, Laxminarayan R, Mock CN, Nugent R (eds) Disease control priorities: improving health and reducing poverty

Malik S, Kishore S, Nag S, Dhasmana A, Preetam, S, Mitra O, León-Figueroa DA, Mohanty A, Chattu VK, Assefi M, et al (2023) Ebola virus disease vaccines: development, current perspectives & challenges. Vaccines 11:268. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11020268

Mansour R, Liamputtong P, Arora A (2021) Food security among Libyan migrants living in Australia: a qualitative study. Sustainability 13:13853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413853

Meadows-Oliver M (2009) Does qualitative research have a place in evidence-based nursing practice? Journal of Pediatric Health Care 23(5):352–4

Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Moreira A, Hick R (2021) COVID-19, the great recession and social policy: is this time different? Soc Policy Adm:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12679

Mullen EJ, Bellamy JL, Bledsoe SE (2018) Evidence-based practice. In: Grinnell RM, Unrau YA (eds) Social work research and evaluation: foundations of evidence-based practice, 10th edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 200–217

Olsen K, Young RA, Schultz IZ (2016) Handbook of qualitative health research for evidence-based practice. Springer, New York

Padgett DK (2012) Qualitative and mixed methods in public health. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Patton MQ (2016) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Piret J, Boivin G (2021) Pandemics throughout history. Front Microbiol 11:631736. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.631736

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Portney LG (2020) Foundations of clinical research: applications to evidence-based practice. F.A. Davis, Philadelphia

Rossman GB, Rallis SF (2017) Learning in the field: an introduction to qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Sawyer A-M (2019) Mental illness: understanding, experience, and service provision. In J. Germov (Ed.), Second opinion: an introduction to health sociology (6th ed.) (pp. 307–324). Melbourne: Oxford University Press

Schmidt NA, Brown JM (2019) What is evidence-based practice? In: Schmidt NA, Brown JM (eds) Evidence-based practice for nurses: appraisal and application of research, 4th edn. Burlington, Jones & Bartlett Learning, pp 3–66

Schneider M-J (2017) Introduction to public health, 5th edn. Jones & Bartlett, Sudbury

Søndergaard E, Reventlow S (2019) Drawing as a facili- tating approach when conducting research among children. Int J Qual Methods 18:1609406918822558

Stickley T, O’Caithain AM, Homer C (2022) The value of qualitative methods to public health research, policy and practice. Perspect Public Health 142(4):237–240

Straus SE, Glasziou P, Richardson WS, Haynes RB, Pattani R, Veroniki AA (2019) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach it. Elsevier, London

Swartz TH, Palermo A-GS, Masur SK, Aberg JA (2019) The science and value of diversity: closing the gaps in our understanding of inclusion and diversity. J Infect Dis 220(S2):S33–S41

Tarasuk V, Mitchell A (2020) Household food insecurity in Canada, 2017–2018. Available online: https://proof.utoronto.ca/ . Accessed 19 October 2020

Teti M, Sanchez E, Liebenberg L (2020) Methods in the time of COVID-19: the vital role of qualitative inquiries. Int J Qual Methods 19:1–5

The Lancet Infectious Diseases Editorial (2022) Designing infectious disease programmes for the future. Lancet Infect Dis 22:1253

Thoradeniya T, Jayasinghe S (2021) COVID-19 and future pandemics: a global systems approach and relevance to SDGs. Glob Health 17:59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00711-6

Thorne S (2009) The role of qualitative research within an evidence-based context: can metasynthesis be the answer? Int J Nurs Stud 46(4):569–575

Tracy SJ (2019) Qualitative research methods: collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley, Newark

UNAIDS (2021) Global HIV statistics – Fact sheet 2021. Retrieved https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet

Ware NC (2019) Qualitative contributions to implementation research on HIV prevention and treatment. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 82(Suppl 3):S217–S221

Ware NC, Pisarski EE, Tam M et al (2016) The meanings in the messages: how SMS reminders and real-time adherence monitoring improve antiretroviral therapy adherence in rural Uganda. AIDS 30:1287–1293. http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Westall C, Liamputtong P (2011) Motherhood and post- natal depression: narratives of women and their partners. Springer Science & Business Media

White FMM, Stallones L, Last JM (2013) Global public health: ecological foundations. Oxford University Press, New York

World Health Organization (2021) Obesity and overweight. Retrieve https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight

Zoumpourlis V, Goulielmaki M, Rizoz E, Baliou S, Spandidos DA (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic as a scientific and social challenge in the 21st century. Mol Med Rep 22:3035–3048

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zuzelo PR (2012) Evidence-based nursing and qualitative research: a partnership imperative for real-world practice. In: Munhall PL (ed) Nursing research: a qualitative perspective, 4th edn. Jones & Bartlett, Sudbury, pp 481–500

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Health Sciences, VinUniversity, Hanoi, Vietnam

Pranee Liamputtong

Zoe Sanipreeya Rice

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pranee Liamputtong .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Liamputtong, P., Rice, Z.S. (2023). Qualitative Research Inquiry and Global Public Health. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Social Sciences and Global Public Health. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25110-8_45

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25110-8_45

Published : 10 September 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-25109-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-25110-8

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research