qualitative health research questions

Qualitative Research Questions: Gain Powerful Insights + 25 Examples

We review the basics of qualitative research questions, including their key components, how to craft them effectively, & 25 example questions.

Einstein was many things—a physicist, a philosopher, and, undoubtedly, a mastermind. He also had an incredible way with words. His quote, "Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted," is particularly poignant when it comes to research. 

Some inquiries call for a quantitative approach, for counting and measuring data in order to arrive at general conclusions. Other investigations, like qualitative research, rely on deep exploration and understanding of individual cases in order to develop a greater understanding of the whole. That’s what we’re going to focus on today.

Qualitative research questions focus on the "how" and "why" of things, rather than the "what". They ask about people's experiences and perceptions , and can be used to explore a wide range of topics.

The following article will discuss the basics of qualitative research questions, including their key components, and how to craft them effectively. You'll also find 25 examples of effective qualitative research questions you can use as inspiration for your own studies.

Let’s get started!

What are qualitative research questions, and when are they used?

When researchers set out to conduct a study on a certain topic, their research is chiefly directed by an overarching question . This question provides focus for the study and helps determine what kind of data will be collected.

By starting with a question, we gain parameters and objectives for our line of research. What are we studying? For what purpose? How will we know when we’ve achieved our goals?

Of course, some of these questions can be described as quantitative in nature. When a research question is quantitative, it usually seeks to measure or calculate something in a systematic way.

For example:

• How many people in our town use the library?
• What is the average income of families in our city?
• How much does the average person weigh?

Other research questions, however—and the ones we will be focusing on in this article—are qualitative in nature. Qualitative research questions are open-ended and seek to explore a given topic in-depth.

According to the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , “Qualitative research aims to address questions concerned with developing an understanding of the meaning and experience dimensions of humans’ lives and social worlds.”

This type of research can be used to gain a better understanding of people’s thoughts, feelings and experiences by “addressing questions beyond ‘what works’, towards ‘what works for whom when, how and why, and focusing on intervention improvement rather than accreditation,” states one paper in Neurological Research and Practice .

Qualitative questions often produce rich data that can help researchers develop hypotheses for further quantitative study.

• What are people’s thoughts on the new library?
• How does it feel to be a first-generation student at our school?
• How do people feel about the changes taking place in our town?

As stated by a paper in Human Reproduction , “...‘qualitative’ methods are used to answer questions about experience, meaning, and perspective, most often from the standpoint of the participant. These data are usually not amenable to counting or measuring.”

Both quantitative and qualitative questions have their uses; in fact, they often complement each other. A well-designed research study will include a mix of both types of questions in order to gain a fuller understanding of the topic at hand.

If you would like to recruit unlimited participants for qualitative research for free and only pay for the interview you conduct, try using Respondent  today. 

Crafting qualitative research questions for powerful insights

Now that we have a basic understanding of what qualitative research questions are and when they are used, let’s take a look at how you can begin crafting your own.

According to a study in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, there is a certain process researchers should follow when crafting their questions, which we’ll explore in more depth.

1. Beginning the process 

Start with a point of interest or curiosity, and pose a draft question or ‘self-question’. What do you want to know about the topic at hand? What is your specific curiosity? You may find it helpful to begin by writing several questions.

For example, if you’re interested in understanding how your customer base feels about a recent change to your product, you might ask: 

• What made you decide to try the new product?
• How do you feel about the change?
• What do you think of the new design/functionality?
• What benefits do you see in the change?

2. Create one overarching, guiding question 

At this point, narrow down the draft questions into one specific question. “Sometimes, these broader research questions are not stated as questions, but rather as goals for the study.”

As an example of this, you might narrow down these three questions: 

into the following question: 

• What are our customers’ thoughts on the recent change to our product?

3. Theoretical framing 

As you read the relevant literature and apply theory to your research, the question should be altered to achieve better outcomes. Experts agree that pursuing a qualitative line of inquiry should open up the possibility for questioning your original theories and altering the conceptual framework with which the research began.

If we continue with the current example, it’s possible you may uncover new data that informs your research and changes your question. For instance, you may discover that customers’ feelings about the change are not just a reaction to the change itself, but also to how it was implemented. In this case, your question would need to reflect this new information: 

• How did customers react to the process of the change, as well as the change itself?

4. Ethical considerations 

A study in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education stresses that ethics are “a central issue when a researcher proposes to study the lives of others, especially marginalized populations.” Consider how your question or inquiry will affect the people it relates to—their lives and their safety. Shape your question to avoid physical, emotional, or mental upset for the focus group.

In analyzing your question from this perspective, if you feel that it may cause harm, you should consider changing the question or ending your research project. Perhaps you’ve discovered that your question encourages harmful or invasive questioning, in which case you should reformulate it.

5. Writing the question 

The actual process of writing the question comes only after considering the above points. The purpose of crafting your research questions is to delve into what your study is specifically about” Remember that qualitative research questions are not trying to find the cause of an effect, but rather to explore the effect itself.

Your questions should be clear, concise, and understandable to those outside of your field. In addition, they should generate rich data. The questions you choose will also depend on the type of research you are conducting: 

• If you’re doing a phenomenological study, your questions might be open-ended, in order to allow participants to share their experiences in their own words.
• If you’re doing a grounded-theory study, your questions might be focused on generating a list of categories or themes.
• If you’re doing ethnography, your questions might be about understanding the culture you’re studying.

Whenyou have well-written questions, it is much easier to develop your research design and collect data that accurately reflects your inquiry.

In writing your questions, it may help you to refer to this simple flowchart process for constructing questions:

Download Free E-Book 

25 examples of expertly crafted qualitative research questions

It's easy enough to cover the theory of writing a qualitative research question, but sometimes it's best if you can see the process in practice. In this section, we'll list 25 examples of B2B and B2C-related qualitative questions.

Let's begin with five questions. We'll show you the question, explain why it's considered qualitative, and then give you an example of how it can be used in research.

1. What is the customer's perception of our company's brand?

Qualitative research questions are often open-ended and invite respondents to share their thoughts and feelings on a subject. This question is qualitative because it seeks customer feedback on the company's brand. 

This question can be used in research to understand how customers feel about the company's branding, what they like and don't like about it, and whether they would recommend it to others.

2. Why do customers buy our product?

This question is also qualitative because it seeks to understand the customer's motivations for purchasing a product. It can be used in research to identify the reasons  customers buy a certain product, what needs or desires the product fulfills for them, and how they feel about the purchase after using the product.

3. How do our customers interact with our products?

Again, this question is qualitative because it seeks to understand customer behavior. In this case, it can be used in research to see how customers use the product, how they interact with it, and what emotions or thoughts the product evokes in them.

4. What are our customers' biggest frustrations with our products?

By seeking to understand customer frustrations, this question is qualitative and can provide valuable insights. It can be used in research to help identify areas in which the company needs to make improvements with its products.

5. How do our customers feel about our customer service?

Rather than asking why customers like or dislike something, this question asks how they feel. This qualitative question can provide insights into customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a company. 

This type of question can be used in research to understand what customers think of the company's customer service and whether they feel it meets their needs.

20 more examples to refer to when writing your question

Now that you’re aware of what makes certain questions qualitative, let's move into 20 more examples of qualitative research questions:

• How do your customers react when updates are made to your app interface?
• How do customers feel when they complete their purchase through your ecommerce site?
• What are your customers' main frustrations with your service?
• How do people feel about the quality of your products compared to those of your competitors?
• What motivates customers to refer their friends and family members to your product or service?
• What are the main benefits your customers receive from using your product or service?
• How do people feel when they finish a purchase on your website?
• What are the main motivations behind customer loyalty to your brand?
• How does your app make people feel emotionally?
• For younger generations using your app, how does it make them feel about themselves?
• What reputation do people associate with your brand?
• How inclusive do people find your app?
• In what ways are your customers' experiences unique to them?
• What are the main areas of improvement your customers would like to see in your product or service?
• How do people feel about their interactions with your tech team?
• What are the top five reasons people use your online marketplace?
• How does using your app make people feel in terms of connectedness?
• What emotions do people experience when they're using your product or service?
• Aside from the features of your product, what else about it attracts customers?
• How does your company culture make people feel?

As you can see, these kinds of questions are completely open-ended. In a way, they allow the research and discoveries made along the way to direct the research. The questions are merely a starting point from which to explore.

This video offers tips on how to write good qualitative research questions, produced by Qualitative Research Expert, Kimberly Baker.

Wrap-up: crafting your own qualitative research questions.

Over the course of this article, we've explored what qualitative research questions are, why they matter, and how they should be written. Hopefully you now have a clear understanding of how to craft your own.

Remember, qualitative research questions should always be designed to explore a certain experience or phenomena in-depth, in order to generate powerful insights. As you write your questions, be sure to keep the following in mind:

• Are you being inclusive of all relevant perspectives?
• Are your questions specific enough to generate clear answers?
• Will your questions allow for an in-depth exploration of the topic at hand?
• Do the questions reflect your research goals and objectives?

If you can answer "yes" to all of the questions above, and you've followed the tips for writing qualitative research questions we shared in this article, then you're well on your way to crafting powerful queries that will yield valuable insights.

Download Free E-Book

Asking the right questions in the right way is the key to research success. That’s true for not just the discussion guide but for every step of a research project. Following are 100+ questions that will take you from defining your research objective through  screening and participant discussions.

Fill out the form below to access free e-book! 

Recommend Resources:

• How to Recruit Participants for Qualitative Research
• The Best UX Research Tools of 2022
• 10 Smart Tips for Conducting Better User Interviews
• 50 Powerful Questions You Should Ask In Your Next User Interview
• How To Find Participants For User Research: 13 Ways To Make It Happen
• UX Diary Study: 5 Essential Tips For Conducing Better Studies
• User Testing Recruitment: 10 Smart Tips To Find Participants Fast
• Qualitative Research Questions: Gain Powerful Insights + 25
• How To Successfully Recruit Participants for A Study (2022 Edition)
• How To Properly Recruit Focus Group Participants (2022 Edition)
• The Best Unmoderated Usability Testing Tools of 2022

50 Powerful User Interview Questions You Should Consider Asking

We researched the best user interview questions you can use for your qualitative research studies. Use these 50 sample questions for your next...

Understanding Why High-Quality Research Needs High-Quality Participants

Why are high-quality participants essential to your research? Read here to find out who they are, why you need them, and how to find them.

How To ​​Unleash Your Extra Income Potential With Respondent

The number one question we get from new participants is “how can I get invited to participate in more projects.” In this article, we’ll discuss a few...

• Open access
• Published: 27 May 2020

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

• Loraine Busetto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9228-7875 1 ,
• Wolfgang Wick 1 , 2 &
• Christoph Gumbinger 1  

Neurological Research and Practice volume  2 , Article number:  14 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

682k Accesses

265 Citations

88 Altmetric

Metrics details

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.

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 , 8 , 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 , 10 , 11 , 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 , 25 , 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 , 32 , 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 , 38 , 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.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Endovascular treatment

Randomised Controlled Trial

Standard Operating Procedure

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research

Philipsen, H., & Vernooij-Dassen, M. (2007). Kwalitatief onderzoek: nuttig, onmisbaar en uitdagend. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk . [Qualitative research: useful, indispensable and challenging. In: Qualitative research: Practical methods for medical practice (pp. 5–12). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches . London: Sage.

Kelly, J., Dwyer, J., Willis, E., & Pekarsky, B. (2014). Travelling to the city for hospital care: Access factors in country aboriginal patient journeys. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 22 (3), 109–113.

Article   Google Scholar  

Nilsen, P., Ståhl, C., Roback, K., & Cairney, P. (2013). Never the twain shall meet? - a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Science, 8 (1), 1–12.

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/ .

Eakin, J. M. (2016). Educating critical qualitative health researchers in the land of the randomized controlled trial. Qualitative Inquiry, 22 (2), 107–118.

May, A., & Mathijssen, J. (2015). Alternatieven voor RCT bij de evaluatie van effectiviteit van interventies!? Eindrapportage. In Alternatives for RCTs in the evaluation of effectiveness of interventions!? Final report .

Google Scholar  

Berwick, D. M. (2008). The science of improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299 (10), 1182–1184.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Christ, T. W. (2014). Scientific-based research and randomized controlled trials, the “gold” standard? Alternative paradigms and mixed methodologies. Qualitative Inquiry, 20 (1), 72–80.

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.

Drabble, S. J., & O’Cathain, A. (2015). Moving from Randomized Controlled Trials to Mixed Methods Intervention Evaluation. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (pp. 406–425). London: Oxford University Press.

Chambers, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., & Stange, K. C. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: Addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science : IS, 8 , 117.

Hak, T. (2007). Waarnemingsmethoden in kwalitatief onderzoek. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk . [Observation methods in qualitative research] (pp. 13–25). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 6 (2), 36–40.

Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36 , 717–732.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). Thousand Oaks: Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative Research Methods.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 , 63–75.

van der Geest, S. (2006). Participeren in ziekte en zorg: meer over kwalitatief onderzoek. Huisarts en Wetenschap, 49 (4), 283–287.

Hijmans, E., & Kuyper, M. (2007). Het halfopen interview als onderzoeksmethode. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk . [The half-open interview as research method (pp. 43–51). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

Jansen, H. (2007). Systematiek en toepassing van de kwalitatieve survey. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk . [Systematics and implementation of the qualitative survey (pp. 27–41). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

Pv, R., & Peremans, L. (2007). Exploreren met focusgroepgesprekken: de ‘stem’ van de groep onder de loep. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk . [Exploring with focus group conversations: the “voice” of the group under the magnifying glass (pp. 53–64). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41 (5), 545–547.

Boeije H: Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek: Denken en doen, [Analysis in qualitative research: Thinking and doing] vol. Den Haag Boom Lemma uitgevers; 2012.

Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2015). Designing Multimethod Research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (pp. 185–205). London: Oxford University Press.

Archibald, M. M., Radil, A. I., Zhang, X., & Hanson, W. E. (2015). Current mixed methods practices in qualitative research: A content analysis of leading journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14 (2), 5–33.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a Mixed Methods Design. In Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320 (7226), 50–52.

O'Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity, 52 (4), 1893–1907.

Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24 (1), 9–18.

Marlett, N., Shklarov, S., Marshall, D., Santana, M. J., & Wasylak, T. (2015). 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, 24 (5), 1057–1067.

Demian, M. N., Lam, N. N., Mac-Way, F., Sapir-Pichhadze, R., & Fernandez, N. (2017). Opportunities for engaging patients in kidney research. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, 4 , 2054358117703070–2054358117703070.

Noyes, J., McLaughlin, L., Morgan, K., Roberts, A., Stephens, M., Bourne, J., Houlston, M., Houlston, J., Thomas, S., Rhys, R. G., et al. (2019). Designing a co-productive study to overcome known methodological challenges in organ donation research with bereaved family members. Health Expectations . 22(4):824–35.

Piil, K., Jarden, M., & Pii, K. H. (2019). Research agenda for life-threatening cancer. European Journal Cancer Care (Engl), 28 (1), e12935.

Hofmann, D., Ibrahim, F., Rose, D., Scott, D. L., Cope, A., Wykes, T., & Lempp, H. (2015). 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, 18 (5), 995–1008.

Jun, M., Manns, B., Laupacis, A., Manns, L., Rehal, B., Crowe, S., & Hemmelgarn, B. R. (2015). 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, 2 , 35.

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 .

Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18 (2), 179–183.

Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21 (5), 619–634.

Download references

Acknowledgements

no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

Loraine Busetto, Wolfgang Wick & Christoph Gumbinger

Clinical Cooperation Unit Neuro-Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

Wolfgang Wick

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loraine Busetto .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Busetto, L., Wick, W. & Gumbinger, C. How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurol. Res. Pract. 2 , 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z

Download citation

Received : 30 January 2020

Accepted : 22 April 2020

Published : 27 May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z

Share this article

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

• Qualitative research
• Mixed methods
• Quality assessment

Neurological Research and Practice

ISSN: 2524-3489

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Qualitative Health Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

Qualitative Health Research provides an international, interdisciplinary forum to enhance health and health care and further the development and understanding of qualitative health research. The journal is an invaluable resource for researchers and academics, administrators and others in the health and social service professions, and graduates, who seek examples of studies in which the authors used qualitative methodologies. Each issue of Qualitative Health Research provides readers with a wealth of information on conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative inquiry. A Variety of Perspectives We encourage submissions across all health-related areas and disciplines. Qualitative Health Research understands health in its broadest sense and values contributions from various traditions of qualitative inquiry. As a journal of SAGE Publishing, Qualitative Health Research aspires to disseminate high-quality research and engaged scholarship globally, and we are committed to diversity and inclusion in publishing. We encourage submissions from a diverse range of authors from across all countries and backgrounds. There are no fees payable to submit or publish in Qualitative Health Research .

Original, Timely, and Insightful Scholarship Qualitative Health Research aspires to publish articles addressing significant and contemporary health-related issues. Only manuscripts of sufficient originality and quality that align with the aims and scope of Qualitative Health Research will be reviewed. As part of the submission process authors are required to warrant that they are submitting original work, that they have the rights in the work, that they have obtained, and that can supply all necessary permissions for the reproduction of any copyright works not owned by them, and that they are submitting the work for first publication in the Journal and that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has not already been published elsewhere. Please note that Qualitative Health Research does not accept submissions of papers that have been published elsewhere. Sage requires authors to identify preprints upon submission (see https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/preprintsfaq ). This Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) .

This Journal recommends that authors follow the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals formulated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Qualitative Health Research is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.

• Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
• CAB Abstracts (Index Veterinarius, Veterinary Bulletin)
• CABI: Abstracts on Hygiene and Communicable Diseases
• CABI: CAB Abstracts
• CABI: Global Health
• CABI: Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews Series A
• CABI: Tropical Diseases Bulletin
• Clarivate Analytics: Current Contents - Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
• Combined Health Information Database (CHID)
• Corporate ResourceNET - Ebsco
• Current Citations Express
• EBSCO: Vocational & Career Collection
• EMBASE/Excerpta Medica
• Family & Society Studies Worldwide (NISC)
• Health Business FullTEXT
• Health Service Abstracts
• Health Source Plus
• MasterFILE - Ebsco
• ProQuest: Applied Social Science Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
• ProQuest: CSA Sociological Abstracts
• Psychological Abstracts
• Rural Development Abstracts
• SRM Database of Social Research Methodology
• Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
• Social Services Abstracts
• Standard Periodical Directory (SPD)
• TOPICsearch - Ebsco

Manuscript submission guidelines:

Qualitative Health Research (QHR)  has specific guidelines! While  Sage Publishing has general guidelines , all manuscripts submitted to QHR must follow our specific guidelines (found below). Once you have reviewed these guidelines, please visit QHR ’s  submission site  to upload your manuscript.   Please note that manuscripts not conforming to these guidelines will be returned and/or encounter delays in peer review.   Remember you can log in to the submission site at any time to check on the progress of your manuscript throughout the peer review process.

1. Deciding whether to submit a manuscript to QHR

1.1 Aims & scope

1.2 Article types

2. Review criteria

2.1  Original research studies

2.2 Pearls, Piths, and Provocations

2.3 Common reasons for rejection

3.  Preparing your manuscript

3.1 Title page

3.2 Abstract

3.3 Manuscript

3.4 Tables, Figures, Artwork, and other graphics

3.5 Supplemental material

4. Submitting your manuscript

5. Editorial Policies

5.1 Peer review policy

5.2 Authorship

5.3 Acknowledgments

5.4 Funding

5.5 Declaration of conflicting interests

5.6 Research ethics and participant consent

6. Publishing Policies

6.1 Publication ethics

6.2 Contribtor's publishing agreement

6.3 Open access and author archiving

1. Deciding whether to submit a manuscript to QHR 

QHR  provides an international, interdisciplinary forum to enhance health and health care and further the development and understanding of qualitative health research. The journal is an invaluable resource for researchers and academics, administrators and others in the health and social service professions, and graduates, who seek examples of studies in which the authors used qualitative methodologies.  Each issue of QHR provides readers with a wealth of information on conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative inquiry.

Rather than send query letters to the Editor regarding article fit, QHR asks authors to make their own decision regarding the suitability of their manuscript for QHR   by  asking: Does your proposed submission make a meaningful and strong contribution to qualitative health research literature? Is it useful to readers and/or practitioners?

The following manuscript types are considered for publication.

• Original Research Studies : These are fully developed qualitative research studies. This may include mixed method studies in which the major focus/portion of the study is qualitative research. Please read  Maintaining the Integrity of Qualitatively Driven Mixed Methods: Avoiding the “ This Work is Part of a Larger Study”  Syndrome . 
• Pearls, Piths, and Provocations : These manuscripts should foster discussion and debate about significant issues, enhance communication of methodological advances, promote and discuss issues related to the teaching of qualitative approaches in health contexts, and/or encourage the discussion of new and/or provocative ideas. They should also make clear what the manuscript adds to the existing body of knowledge in the area.
• Editorials : These are generally invited articles written by editors/editorial board members associated with QHR.

Please note, QHR does NOT publish pilot studies. We do not normally publish   literature reviews unless they focus on qualitative research studies elaborating methodological issues and developments. Review articles should be submitted to the Pearls, Piths, and Provocations section. They are reviewed according to criteria in 2.2.

Back to top

2. Review criteria 

2.1 Original research

Reviewers are asked to consider the following areas and questions when making recommendations about research manuscripts:

• Importance of submission : Does the manuscript make a significant contribution to qualitative health research literature?  Is it original? Relevant? In depth? Insightful? Is it useful to the reader and/or practitioner?
• Methodological considerations : Is the overall study design clearly explained including why this design was an appropriate one? Are the methodology/methods/approaches used in keeping with that design? Are they appropriate given the research question and/or aims? Are they logically articulated? Clarity in design and presentation? Data adequacy and appropriateness? Evidence of rigor?
• Ethical Concerns : Are relevant ethical concerns discussed and acknowledged? Is enough detail given to enable the reader to understand how ethical issues were navigated? Has formal IRB approval (when needed) and consent from participants been obtained?
• Data analysis, findings, discussion : Does the analysis of data reflect depth and coherence? In-depth descriptive but also interpretive dimensions? Creative and insightful analysis? Are results linked to existing literature and theory, as appropriate? Is the contribution of the research clear including its relevance to health disciplines and their practice?
• Manuscript style and format : Is the manuscript organized in a clear and concise manner? Has sufficient attention been paid to word choice, spelling, grammar, and so forth? Did the author adhere to APA guidelines? Do diagrams/illustrations comply with guidelines? Is the overall manuscript aligned with QHR guidelines in relation to formatting?
• Scope:  Does the article fit with QHR ’s publication mandate? Has the author cited the major work in the area, including those published in QHR ? 

The purpose of papers in this section is to raise and discuss issues pertinent to the development and advancement of qualitative research in health-related arenas.  As the name Pearls, Piths, and Provocations suggests, we are looking for manuscripts that make a significant contribution to areas of dialogue, development, experience sharing and debate relevant to the scope of QHR in this section of the journal.  Reviewers are asked to consider the following questions when making recommendations about  articles in the Pearls, Piths, and Provocations section.

• Significance :   Does the paper highlight issues that have the potential to advance, develop, and/or challenge thinking in qualitative health related research?
• Clarity :   Are the arguments clearly presented and well supported? 
• Rigor :   Is there the explicit use of/interaction with methodology and/or theory and/or empirical studies (depending on the focus of the paper) that grounds the work and is coherently carried throughout the arguments and/or analysis in the manuscript? Put another way, is there evidence of a rigorously constructed argument?
• Engagement :   Does the paper have the potential to engage the reader to ‘think differently’ by raising questions, suggesting innovative directions for qualitative health research, and/or stimulating critical reflection?   Are the implications of the paper for the practice of either qualitative research and/or health clear? 
• Quality of the writing :   Is the main argument of the paper clearly articulated and presented with few grammatical or typographical issues? Are terms and concepts key to the scholarship communicated clearly and in sufficient detail? 

QHR  most commonly turns away manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, do not make a novel contribution to the literature, lack substantive and/or interpretative depth, require extensive revisions, and/or do not adequately address ethical issues that are fundamental to qualitative inquiry. Submissions of the supplementary component of mixed methods studies often are rejected as the findings are difficult to interpret without the findings of the primary study. For additional information on this policy, please read  Maintaining the Integrity of Qualitatively Driven Mixed Methods: Avoiding the “ This Work is Part of a Larger Study”  Syndrome . 

3. Preparing your manuscript for submission 

We strongly encourage all authors to review previously published articles in QHR for style prior to submission.

QHR  journal practices include double anonymization. All identifying information MUST be removed completely from the Abstract, Manuscript, Acknowledgements, Tables, and Figure files prior to submission. ONLY the Title Page and Cover Letter may contain identifying information. See  Sage’s general submission guidelines  for additional guidance on making an anonymous submission.

Preferred formats for the text and tables of your manuscript are Word DOC or PDF. The text must be double-spaced throughout with standard 1-inch margins (APA formatting). Text should be standard font (i.e., Times New Roman) 12-point. 

3.1 Title page 

• The title page should be uploaded as a separate document containing the following information: Author names; Affiliations; Author contact information; Contribution list; Acknowledgements; Ethical statement; Funding Statement; Conflict of Interest Statements; and, Grant Number. Please know that the Title Page is NOT included in the materials sent out for Peer Review.
• Ethical statement: An ethical statement must include the following: the full name of the ethical board that approved your study; the approval number given by the ethical board; and, confirmation that all your participants gave informed consent. Authors are also required to state in the methods section whether participants provided informed consent, whether the consent was written or verbal, and how it was obtained and by whom. For example: “Our study was approved by The Mercy Health Research Ethics Committee (approval no. XYZ123). All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrollment in the study.” If your study did not need ethical approval (often manuscripts in the Pearls, Piths, and Provocations may not), we still need a statement that states that your study did not need approval and an explanation as to why. For example: “Ethical Statement: Our study did not require an ethical board approval because it did not directly involve humans or animals.” 

3.2 Abstract and Keywords

• The Abstract should be unstructured, written in narrative form. Maximum of 250 words. This should be on its own page, appearing as the first page of the Main Manuscript file.
• The keywords should be included beneath the abstract on the Main Manuscript file. 
• Length: 8,000 words or less excluding the abstract, list of references, and acknowledgements. Please note that text from Tables and Figures is included in the word count limits. On-line supplementary materials are not included in the word limit. 
• Structure: While many authors will choose to use headings of Background, Methods, Results, and Discussion to organize their manuscript, it is up to authors to choose the most appropriate terms and structure for their submission. It is the expectation that manuscripts contain detailed reflections on methodological considerations.
• Ethics: In studies where data collection or other methods present ethical challenges, the authors should explicate how such issues were navigated including how consent was gained and by whom. An anonymized version of the ethical statement should be included in the manuscript (in addition to appearing on the title page).
• Participant identification: Generally, demographics should be described in narrative form or otherwise reported as a group. Quotations may be linked to particular participants and/or demographic features provided measures are taken to ensure anonymity of participants (e.g., use of pseudonyms).
• Use of checklists: Authors should not include qualitative research checklists, such as COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research).  Generally, authors should use a narrative approach to describe the processes used to enhance the rigor of their study. For additional information on this policy, please read  Why the Qualitative Health Research (QHR) Review Process Does Not Use Checklists
• References: APA format. While there is no limit to the number of references, authors are recommended to use pertinent references only, including literature previously published in QHR . References should be on a separate page.   QHR adheres to the APA 7 reference style. View the APA guidelines to ensure your manuscript conforms to this reference style. Please ensure you check carefully that both your in-text references and list of references are in the correct format.
• Authors are required to disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (such as ChatGPT) and other technologies (such as NVivo, ATLAS. Ti, Quirkos, etc.), whether used to conceive ideas, develop study design, generate data, assist in analysis, present study findings, or other activities formative of qualitative research. We suggest authors provide both a description of the technology, when it was accessed, and how it was used (see  https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/chatgpt-and-generative-ai ).
• Manuscripts that receive favorable reviews will not be accepted until any formatting and copy-editing required has been done. 
• Tables, Figures, Artwork, and other graphics should be submitted as separate files rather than incorporated into the main manuscript file. Within the manuscript, indicate where these items should appear (i.e. INSERT TABLE 1 HERE).
• TIFF, JPED, or common picture formats accepted. The preferred format for graphs and line art is EPS.
• Resolution: Rasterized based files (i.e. with .tiff or .jpeg extension) require a resolution of at least 300 dpi (dots per inch). Line art should be supplied with a minimum resolution of 800 dpi.
• Dimension: Check that the artworks supplied match or exceed the dimensions of the journal. Images cannot be scaled up after origination.
• Figures supplied in color will appear in color online regardless of whether or not these illustrations are reproduced in color in the printed version. For specifically requested color reproduction in print, you will receive information regarding the costs from Sage after receipt of your accepted article. 
• Core elements of the manuscript should not be included as supplementary material.
• QHR  is able to host additional materials online (e.g., datasets, podcasts, videos, images etc.) alongside the full-text of the article. For more information please refer to Sage’s general  guidelines on submitting supplemental files .

4. Submitting your manuscript 

QHR  is hosted on Sage Track, a web based online submission and peer review system powered by ScholarOne™ Manuscripts. Visit  https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/QHR  to login and submit your article online. 

IMPORTANT:  Please check whether you already have an account in the system before trying to create a new one. If you have reviewed or authored for the Journal in the past year it is likely that you will have had an account created.  For further guidance on submitting your manuscript online please visit  ScholarOne Online Help . 

5. Editorial policies 

QHR  adheres to a rigorous double-anonymized reviewing policy in which the identities of both the reviewer and author are always concealed from both parties.

Sage does not permit the use of author-suggested (recommended) reviewers at any stage of the submission process, be that through the web-based submission system or other communication. Reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Our policy is that reviewers should not be assigned to a manuscript if:

•  The reviewer is based at the same institution as any of the co-authors

•  The reviewer is based at the funding body of the manuscript

•  The author has recommended the reviewer

•  The reviewer has provided a personal (e.g. Gmail/Yahoo/Hotmail) email account and an institutional email account cannot be found after performing a basic Google search (name, department and institution). 

Qualitative Health Research  is committed to delivering high quality, fast peer-review for your manuscript, and as such has partnered with Web of Science. Web of Science is a third-party service that seeks to track, verify and give credit for peer review. Reviewers for Qualitative Health Research can opt in to Web of Science in order to claim their reviews or have them automatically verified and added to their reviewer profile. Reviewers claiming credit for their review will be associated with the relevant journal, but the article name, reviewer’s decision, and the content of their review is not published on the site. For more information visit the  Web of Science  website.

The Editor or members of the Editorial Team or Board may occasionally submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in the Journal. In these cases, the peer review process will be managed by alternative members of the Editorial Team or Board and the submitting Editor Team/Board member will have no involvement in the decision-making process. 

Manuscripts should only be submitted for consideration once consent is given by all contributing authors. Those submitting manuscripts should carefully check that all those whose work contributed to the manuscript are acknowledged as contributing authors. The list of authors should include all those who can legitimately claim authorship. This is all those who meet all of the following criteria:

(i)   Made a substantial contribution to the design of the work or acquisition, analysis, interpretation, or presentation of data,  (ii)  Drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content,  (iii) Approved the version to be published,  (iv) Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship, although all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. Please refer to the  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines   for more information on authorship.

Authors are required to disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (such as ChatGPT) and other technologies (such as NVivo, ATLAS. Ti, Quirkos, etc.), whether used to conceive ideas, develop study design, generate data, assist in analysis, present study findings, or other activities formative of qualitative research. We suggest authors provide both a description of the technology, when it was accessed, and how it was used. This needs to be clearly identified within the text and acknowledged within your Acknowledgements section. Please note that AI bots such as ChatGPT should not be listed as an author. For more details on this policy, please visit  ChatGPT and Generative AI . 

5.3 Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support.

Please supply any personal acknowledgements separately to the main text to facilitate anonymous peer review. 

Per  ICMJE recommendations , it is best practice to obtain consent from non-author contributors who you are acknowledging in your manuscript.

1.3.1 Writing assistance

Individuals who provided writing assistance, e.g., from a specialist communications company, do not qualify as authors and so should be included in the Acknowledgements section. Authors must disclose any writing assistance – including the individual’s name, company and level of input – and identify the entity that paid for this assistance. It is not necessary to disclose use of language polishing services. 

Qualitative Health Research   requires all authors to acknowledge their funding in a consistent fashion under a separate heading.  Please visit the  Funding Acknowledgements   page on the Sage Journal Author Gateway to confirm the format of the acknowledgment text in the event of funding, or state that: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 

It is the policy of  Qualitative Health Research to require a declaration of conflicting interests from all authors enabling a statement to be carried within the paginated pages of all published articles.

Please ensure that a ‘Declaration of Conflicting Interests’ statement is included at the end of your manuscript, after any acknowledgements and prior to the references. If no conflict exists, please state that ‘The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest’. For guidance on conflict of interest statements, please see the ICMJE recommendations  here . 

Research involving participants must be conducted according to the  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki

Submitted manuscripts should conform to the  ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals :

All manuscripts must state that the relevant Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board provided (or waived) approval. Please ensure that you blind the name and institution of the review committee until such time as your article has been accepted. The Editor will request authors to replace the name and add the approval number once the article review has been completed. Please note that in itself, simply stating that Ethics Committee or Institutional Review was obtained is not sufficient.  Authors are also required to state in the methods section whether participants provided informed consent, whether the consent was written or verbal, and how it was obtained and by whom.

Please do not submit the participant’s informed consent documents with your article, as this in itself breaches the participant’s confidentiality. The Journal requests that you confirm to us, in writing, that you have obtained informed consent recognizing the documentation of consent itself should be held by the authors/investigators themselves (for example, in a participant’s hospital record or an author’s institution’s archives).

Please also refer to the  ICMJE Recommendations for the Protection of Research Participants . 

6. Publishing Policies 

Sage is committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record. We encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’  International Standards for Authors  and view the Publication Ethics page on the  Sage Author Gateway .

6.1.1 Plagiarism

Qualitative Health Research  and Sage take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines plagiarism as: “When somebody presents the work of others (data, words or theories) as if they were his/her own and without proper acknowledgment.” We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice. Submitted articles may be checked with duplication-checking software. Where an article, for example, is found to have plagiarised other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgement, or where the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article; taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author's institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; or taking appropriate legal action.

6.1.2 Prior publication

If material has been previously published it is not generally acceptable for publication in a Sage journal. However, there are certain circumstances where previously published material can be considered for publication. Please refer to the guidance on the  Sage Author Gateway  or if in doubt, contact the Editor at the address given below. 

6.2 Contributor's publishing agreement

Before publication, Sage requires the author as the rights holder to sign a Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement. Sage’s Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement is an exclusive licence agreement which means that the author retains copyright of the work but grants Sage the sole and exclusive right and licence to publish for the full legal term of copyright. Exceptions may exist where an assignment of copyright is required or preferred by a proprietor other than Sage. In this case copyright in the work will be assigned from the author to the society. For more information please visit the  Sage Author Gateway . 

Qualitative Health Research  offers optional open access publishing via the Sage Choice programme and Open Access agreements, where authors can publish open access either discounted or free of charge depending on the agreement with Sage. Find out if your institution is participating by visiting Open Access Agreements at Sage . For more information on Open Access publishing options at Sage please visit Sage Open Access . For information on funding body compliance, and depositing your article in repositories, please visit Sage’s Author Archiving and Re-Use Guidelines and Publishing Policies .

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, E-access

Individual Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

• Open access
• Published: 13 December 2018

Using qualitative Health Research methods to improve patient and public involvement and engagement in research

• Danielle E. Rolfe 1 ,
• Vivian R. Ramsden 2 ,
• Davina Banner 3 &
• Ian D. Graham 1  

Research Involvement and Engagement volume  4 , Article number:  49 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

42k Accesses

57 Citations

23 Altmetric

Metrics details

Plain English summary

Patient engagement (or patient and public involvement) in health research is becoming a requirement for many health research funders, yet many researchers have little or no experience in engaging patients as partners as opposed to research subjects. Additionally, many patients have no experience providing input on the research design or acting as a decision-making partner on a research team. Several potential risks exist when patient engagement is done poorly, despite best intentions. Some of these risks are that: (1) patients’ involvement is merely tokenism (patients are involved but their suggestions have little influence on how research is conducted); (2) engaged patients do not represent the diversity of people affected by the research; and, (3) research outcomes lack relevance to patients’ lives and experiences.

Qualitative health research (the collection and systematic analysis of non-quantitative data about peoples’ experiences of health or illness and the healthcare system) offers several approaches that can help to mitigate these risks. Several qualitative health research methods, when done well, can help research teams to: (1) accurately incorporate patients’ perspectives and experiences into the design and conduct of research; (2) engage diverse patient perspectives; and, (3) treat patients as equal and ongoing partners on the research team.

This commentary presents several established qualitative health research methods that are relevant to patient engagement in research. The hope is that this paper will inspire readers to seek more information about qualitative health research, and consider how its established methods may help improve the quality and ethical conduct of patient engagement for health research.

Research funders in several countries have posited a new vision for research that involves patients and the public as co-applicants for the funding, and as collaborative partners in decision-making at various stages and/or throughout the research process. Patient engagement (or patient and public involvement) in health research is presented as a more democratic approach that leads to research that is relevant to the lives of the people affected by its outcomes. What is missing from the recent proliferation of resources and publications detailing the practical aspects of patient engagement is a recognition of how existing research methods can inform patient engagement initiatives. Qualitative health research, for example, has established methods of collecting and analyzing non-quantitative data about individuals’ and communities’ lived experiences with health, illness and/or the healthcare system. Included in the paradigm of qualitative health research is participatory health research, which offers approaches to partnering with individuals and communities to design and conduct research that addresses their needs and priorities.

The purpose of this commentary is to explore how qualitative health research methods can inform and support meaningful engagement with patients as partners. Specifically, this paper addresses issues of: rigour (how can patient engagement in research be done well?); representation (are the right patients being engaged?); and, reflexivity (is engagement being done in ways that are meaningful, ethical and equitable?). Various qualitative research methods are presented to increase the rigour found within patient engagement. Approaches to engage more diverse patient perspectives are presented to improve representation beyond the common practice of engaging only one or two patients. Reflexivity, or the practice of identifying and articulating how research processes and outcomes are constructed by the respective personal and professional experiences of researchers and patients, is presented to support the development of authentic, sustainable, equitable and meaningful engagement of patients as partners in health research.

Conclusions

Researchers will need to engage patients as stakeholders in order to satisfy the overlapping mandate in health policy, care and research for engaging patients as partners in decision-making. This paper presents several suggestions to ground patient engagement approaches in established research designs and methods.

Peer Review reports

Patient engagement (or patient and public involvement) in research involves partnering with ‘patients’ (a term more often used in Canada and the US, that is inclusive of individuals, caregivers, and/or members of the public) to facilitate research related to health or healthcare services. Rather than research subjects or participants, patients are engaged as partners in the research process. This partnership is intended to be meaningful and ongoing, from the outset of planning a research project, and/or at various stages throughout the research process. Engagement can include the involvement of patients in defining a research question, identifying appropriate outcomes and methods, collecting and interpreting data, and developing and delivering a knowledge translation strategy [ 1 ].

The concept of engaging non-researchers throughout the research process is not new to participatory health researchers, or integrated knowledge translation researchers, as the latter involves ongoing collaboration with clinicians, health planners and policy makers throughout the research process in order to generate new knowledge [ 2 , 3 ]. Patients, however, are less frequently included as partners on health research teams, or as knowledge users in integrated knowledge translation research teams compared to clinicians, healthcare managers and policy-makers, as these individuals are perceived as having “the authority to invoke change in the practice or policy setting.” (p.2) [ 2 ] Recent requirements for patient engagement by health research funders [ 4 , 5 , 6 ], ,and mandates by most healthcare planners and organizations to engage patients in healthcare improvement initiatives, suggest that it would be prudent for integrated knowledge translation (and indeed all) health researchers to begin engaging patients as knowledge users in many, if not all, of their research projects.

Training and tools for patient engagement are being developed and implemented in Canada via the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) initiative, in the US via Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and very practical resources are already available from the UK’s more established INVOLVE Advisory Group [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. What is seldom provided by these ‘get started’ guides, however, are rigorous methods and evidence-based approaches to engaging diverse patient perspectives, and ensuring that their experiences, values and advice are appropriately incorporated into the research process.

The purpose of this commentary is to stimulate readers’ further discussion and inquiry into qualitative health research methods as a means of fostering the more meaningfully engagement of patients as partners for research. Specifically, this paper will address issues of: rigour (how do we know that the interpretation of patients’ perspectives has been done well and is applicable to other patients?); representation (are multiple and diverse patient perspectives being sought?); and, reflexivity (is engagement being done ethically and equitably?). This commentary alone is insufficient to guide researchers and patient partners to use the methods presented as part of their patient engagement efforts. However, with increased understanding of these approaches and perhaps guidance from experienced qualitative health researchers, integrated knowledge translation and health researchers alike may be better prepared to engage patients in a meaningful way in research that has the potential to improve health and healthcare experiences and outcomes.

What can be learned from methods utilized in qualitative health research?

There is wide variation in researchers’ and healthcare providers’ openness to engaging patients [ 8 ]. Often, the patients that are engaged are a select group of individuals known to the research team, sometimes do not reflect the target population of the research, are involved at a consultative rather than a partnership level, and are more likely to be involved in the planning rather than the dissemination of research [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. As a result, patient engagement can be seen as tokenistic and the antithesis of the intention of most patient engagement initiatives, which is to have patients’ diverse experiences and perspectives help to shape what and how research is done. The principles, values, and practices of qualitative health research (e.g., relativism, social equity, inductive reasoning) have rich epistemological traditions that align with the conceptual and practical spirit of patient engagement. It is beyond the scope of this commentary, however, to describe in detail the qualitative research paradigm, and readers are encouraged to gain greater knowledge of this topic via relevant courses and texts. Nevertheless, several qualitative research considerations and methods can be applied to the practice of patient engagement, and the following sections describe three of these: rigour, representation and reflexivity.

Rigour: Interpreting and incorporating patients’ experiences into the design and conduct of research

When patient engagement strategies go beyond the inclusion of a few patient partners on the research team, for example, by using focus groups, interviews, community forums, or other methods of seeking input from a broad range of patient perspectives, the diversity of patients’ experiences or perspectives may be a challenge to quickly draw conclusions from in order to make decisions about the study design. To make these decisions, members of the research team (which should include patient partners) may discuss what they heard about patients’ perspectives and suggestions, and then unsystematically incorporate these suggestions, or they may take a vote, try to achieve consensus, implement a Delphi technique [ 12 ], or use another approach designed specifically for patient engagement like the James Lind Alliance technique for priority setting [ 13 ]. Although the information gathered from patients is not data (and indeed would require ethical review to be used as such), a number of qualitative research practices designed to increase rigour can be employed to help ensure that the interpretation and incorporation of patients’ experiences and perspectives has been done systematically and could be reproduced [ 14 ]. These practices include member checking , dense description , and constant comparative analysis . To borrow key descriptors of rigour from qualitative research, these techniques improve “credibility” (i.e., accurate representations of patients’ experiences and preferences that are likely to be understood or recognized by other patients in similar situations – known in quantitative research as internal validity), and “transferability” (or the ability to apply what was found among a group of engaged patients to other patients in similar contexts – known in quantitative research as external validity) [ 15 ].

Member checking

Member checking in qualitative research involves “taking ideas back to the research participants for their confirmation” (p. 111) [ 16 ]. The objective of member checking is to ensure that a researcher’s interpretation of the data (whether a single interview with a participant, or after analyzing several interviews with participants) accurately reflects the participants’ intended meaning (in the case of a member check with a single participant about their interview), or their lived experience (in the case of sharing an overall finding about several individuals with one or more participants) [ 16 ]. For research involving patient engagement, member checking can be utilized to follow-up with patients who may have been engaged at one or only a few time points, or on an on-going basis with patient partners. A summary of what was understood and what decisions were made based on patients’ recommendations could be used to initiate this discussion and followed up with questions such as, “have I understood correctly what you intended to communicate to me?” or “do you see yourself or your experience(s) reflected in these findings or suggestions for the design of the study?”

Dense description

As with quantitative research, detailed information about qualitative research methods and study participants is needed to enable other researchers to understand the context and focus of the research and to establish how these findings relate more broadly. This helps researchers to not only potentially repeat the study, but to extend its findings to similar participants in similar contexts. Dense description provides details of the social, demographic and health profile of participants (e.g., gender, education, health conditions, etc.), as well as the setting and context of their experiences (i.e., where they live, what access to healthcare they have). In this way, dense description improves the transferability of study findings to similar individuals in similar situations [ 15 ]. To date, most studies involving patient engagement provide limited details about their engagement processes and who was engaged [ 17 ]. This omission may be done intentionally (e.g., to protect the privacy of engaged patients, particularly those with stigmatizing health conditions), or as a practical constraint such as publication word limits. Nonetheless, reporting of patient engagement using some aspects of dense description of participants (as appropriate), the ways that they were engaged, and recommendations that emanated from engaged patients can also contribute to greater transferability and understanding of how patient engagement influenced the design of a research study.

Constant comparative analysis

Constant comparative analysis is a method commonly used in grounded theory qualitative research [ 18 ]. Put simply, the understanding of a phenomenon or experience that a researcher acquires through engaging with participants is constantly redeveloped and refined based on subsequent participant interactions. This process of adapting to new information in order to make it more relevant is similar to processes used in rapid cycle evaluation during implementation research [ 19 ]. This method can be usefully adapted and applied to research involving ongoing collaboration and partnership with several engaged patient partners, and/or engagement strategies that seek the perspectives of many patients at various points in the research process. For example, if, in addition to having ongoing patient partners, a larger group of patients provides input and advice (e.g., a steering or advisory committee) at different stages in the research process, their input may result in multiple course corrections during the design and conduct of the research processes to incorporate their suggestions. These suggestions may result in refinement of earlier decisions made about study design or conduct, and as such, the research process becomes more iterative rather than linear. In this way, engaged patients and patient partners are able to provide their input and experience to improve each step of the research process from formulating an appropriate research question or objective, determining best approaches to conducting the research and sharing it with those most affected by the outcomes.

Representation: Gathering diverse perspectives to design relevant and appropriate research studies

The intention of engaging patients is to have their lived experience of health care or a health condition contribute to the optimization of a research project design [ 20 ]. Development of a meaningful and sustainable relationship with patient partners requires considerable time, a demonstrated commitment to partnership by both the patient partners and the researcher(s), resources to facilitate patient partners’ engagement, and often, an individual designated to support the development of this relationship [ 17 , 21 ]. This may lead some research teams to sustain this relationship with only one or two patients who are often previously known to the research team [ 17 ]. The limitation of this approach is that the experiences of these one or two individuals may not adequately reflect the diverse perspectives of patients that may be affected by the research or its outcomes. The notion of gaining ‘ the patient perspective’ from a single or only a few individuals has already been problematized [ 22 , 23 ]. To be sure, the engagement of a single patient is better than none at all, but the engagement of a broader and diverse population of patients should be considered to better inform the research design, and to help prevent further perpetuation of health disparities. Key issues to be considered include (1) how engagement can be made accessible to patients from diverse backgrounds, and (2) which engagement strategies (e.g., ranging from a community information forum to full partnership on the research team) are most appropriate to reach the target population [ 24 ].

Making engagement accessible

Expecting patient partner(s) to attend regular research team meetings held during working hours in a boardroom setting in a hospital, research institute or university limits the participation of many individuals. To support the participation and diversity of engaged patients, effort should be made to increase the accessibility and emotional safety of engagement initiatives [ 25 ]. A budget must be allocated for patient partners’ transportation, childcare or caregiving support, remuneration for time or time taken off work and, at the very least, covering expenses related to their engagement. Another consideration that is often made by qualitative health researchers is whether brief counselling support can be provided to patients should the sharing of their experiences result in emotional distress. There are some resources that can help with planning for costs [ 26 ], including an online cost calculator [ 27 ].

Engagement strategies

Patient partners can be coached to consider the needs and experiences of people unlike them, but there are other methods of engagement that can help to gain a more fulsome perspective of what is likely a diverse patient population that is the focus of the research study. In qualitative health research, this is known as purposeful or purposive sampling: finding people who can provide information-rich descriptions of the phenomenon under study [ 28 ]. Engagement may require different approaches (e.g., deliberative group processes, community forums, focus groups, and patient partners on the research team), at different times in the research process to reach different individuals or populations (e.g., marginalized patients, or patients or caregivers experiencing illnesses that inhibit their ability to maintain an ongoing relationship with the research team). Engagement strategies of different forms at different times may be required. For example, ongoing engagement may occur with patient partners who are members of the research team (e.g., co-applicants on a research grant), and intermittent engagement may be sought from other patients through other methods that may be more time-limited or accessible to a diverse population of patients (e.g., a one-time focus group, community forum, or ongoing online discussion) to address issues that may arise during various stages of the research or dissemination processes. The result of this approach is that patients are not only consulted or involved (one-time or low commitment methods), but are also members of the research team and have the ability to help make decisions about the research being undertaken.

Engagement can generate a wealth of information from very diverse perspectives. Each iteration of engagement may yield new information. Knowing when enough information has been gathered to make decisions with the research team (that includes patient partners) about how the research may be designed or conducted can be challenging. One approach from qualitative research that can be adapted for patient engagement initiatives is theoretical saturation [ 29 ], or “the point in analysis when…further data gathering and analysis add little new to the conceptualization, though variations can always be discovered.” (p. 263) [ 18 ]. That is, a one-time engagement strategy (e.g., a discussion with a single patient partner) may be insufficient to acquire the diverse perspectives of the individuals that will be affected by the research or its outcomes. Additional strategies (e.g., focus groups or interviews with several individuals) may be initiated until many patients identify similar issues or recommendations.

Engagement approaches should also consider: how patients are initially engaged (e.g., through known or new networks, posted notices, telephone or in-person recruitment) and whether involvement has been offered widely enough to garner multiple perspectives; how patients’ experiences are shared (e.g., community forums, formal meetings, individual or group discussions) and whether facilitation enables broad participation; and finally, how patients’ participation and experiences are incorporated into the research planning and design, with patients having equal decision-making capacity to other research team members. Several publications and tools are available that can help guide researchers who are new to processes of engaging patients in research [ 24 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ], but unfortunately few address how to evaluate the effectiveness of engagement [ 35 ].

Reflexivity: Ensuring meaningful and authentic engagement

In qualitative research, reflexivity is an ongoing process of “the researcher’s scrutiny of his or her research experience, decisions, and interpretations in ways that bring the researcher into the process and allow the reader to assess how and to what extent the researcher’s interests, positions, and assumptions influenced inquiry. A reflexive stance informs how the researcher conducts his or her research, relates to the research participants, and represents them in written reports,” (p.188–189) [ 16 ]. The concept of reflexivity can be applied to research involving patient engagement by continually and explicitly considering how decisions about the research study were made. All members of the research team must consider (and perhaps discuss): (1) how patient partners are invited to participate in research planning and decision-making; (2) how their input is received relative to other team members (i.e., do their suggestions garner the same respect as researchers’ or providers’?); and, (3) whether engaged patients or patient partners feel sufficiently safe, able and respected to share their experiences, preferences and recommendations with the research team.

Ideally, reflexivity becomes a practice within the research team and may be operationalized through regular check-ins with patients and researchers about their comfort in sharing their views, and whether they feel that their views have been considered and taken onboard. Power dynamics should also be considered during patient engagement initiatives. For example, reflecting on how community forums, focus groups or interviews are to be facilitated, including a consideration of who is at the table/who is not, who speaks/who does not, whose suggestions are implemented/whose are not? Reflexivity can be practiced through informal discussions, or using methods that may allow more candid responses by engaged patients (e.g., anonymous online survey or feedback forms). At the very least, if these practices were not conducted throughout the research process, the research team (including patient partners) should endeavor to reflect upon team dynamics and consider how these may have contributed to the research design or outcomes. For example, were physicians and researchers seen as experts and patients felt less welcome or able to share their personal experiences? Were patients only engaged by telephone rather than in-person and did this influence their ability to easily engage in decision-making? Reflexive practices may be usefully supplemented by formal evaluation of the process of patient engagement from the perspective of patients and other research team members [ 36 , 37 ], and some tools are available to do this [ 35 ].

A note about language

One way to address the team dynamic between researchers, professional knowledge users (such as clinicians or health policy planners) and patients is to consider the language used to engage with patients in the planning of patient engagement strategies. That is, the term ‘patient engagement’ is a construction of an individual’s identity that exists only within the healthcare setting, and in the context of a patient-provider dynamic. This term does not consider how people make decisions about their health and healthcare within a broader context of their family, community, and culture [ 22 , 38 ]. This may be why research communities in some countries (e.g., the United Kingdom) use the term ‘patient and public involvement’. Additionally, research that involves communities defined by geography, shared experiences, cultural or ethnic identity, as is the case with participatory health research, may refer to ‘community engagement.’ Regardless of the term used, partnerships with patients, the public, or with communities need to be conceived instead as person-to-person interactions between researchers and individuals who are most affected by the research. Discussions with engaged patients should be conducted early on to determine how to best describe their role on the team or during engagement initiatives (e.g., as patient partners, community members, or people with lived experience).

Tokenism is the “difference between…the empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome,” (p.2) [ 39 ]. Ongoing reflection on the power dynamic between researchers and engaged patients, a central tenet of critical qualitative health research [ 40 , 41 ], can increase the likelihood that engagement involves equitable processes and will result in meaningful engagement experiences by patients rather than tokenism [ 36 , 42 ]. Patient engagement initiatives should strive for “partnership” amongst all team members, and not just reflect a patient-clinician or researcher-subject dynamic [ 43 ]. To develop meaningful, authentic and sustainable relationships with engaged patients, methods used for participatory, action or community-based research (approaches that fall under the paradigm of qualitative inquiry) provide detailed experiential guidance [ 44 ]. For example, a realist review of community-based participatory research projects reported that gaining and maintaining trust with patient or community partners, although time-intensive, is foundational to equitable and sustainable partnerships that benefit communities and individuals [ 45 , 46 ]. Additionally, Chapter Nine of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement on Research involving Humans, which has to date been applied to research involving First Nations, Inuit and, Métis Peoples in Canada [ 47 ], provides useful information and direction that can be applied to working with patient partners on research [ 48 ].

Authentic patient engagement should include their involvement at all stages of the research process [ 49 , 50 ], but this is often not the case [ 10 ]. .Since patient partners are not research subjects or participants, their engagement does not (usually) require ethics approval, and they can be engaged as partners as early as during the submission of grant applications [ 49 ]. This early engagement helps to incorporate patients’ perspectives into the proposed research before the project is wedded to particular objectives, outcomes and methods, and can also serve to allocate needed resources to support patient engagement (including remuneration for patient partners’ time). Training in research for patient partners can also support their meaningful engagement by increasing their ability to fully engage in decision-making with other members of the research team [ 51 , 52 ]. Patient partners may also thrive in co-leading the dissemination of findings to healthcare providers, researchers, patients or communities most affected by the research [ 53 ].

Patient engagement has gained increasing popularity, but many research organizations are still at the early stages of developing approaches and methods, many of which are based on experience rather than evidence. As health researchers and members of the public will increasingly need to partner for research to satisfy the overlapping mandate of patient engagement in health policy, healthcare and research, the qualitative research methods highlighted in this commentary provide some suggestions to foster rigorous, meaningful and sustained engagement initiatives while addressing broader issues of power and representation. By incorporating evidence-based methods of gathering and learning from multiple and diverse patient perspectives, we will hopefully conduct better patient engaged research, live out the democratic ideals of patient engagement, and ultimately contribute to research that is more relevant to the lives of patients; as well as, contribute to the improved delivery of healthcare services. In addition to the references provided in this paper, readers are encouraged to learn more about the meaningful engagement of patients in research from several key texts [ 54 , 55 , 56 ].

Abbreviations

Canadian Institutes for Health Research

Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Strategy for Patient Oriented Research

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. 2014. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/spor_framework-en.pdf . Accessed 27 Sep 2017.

Google Scholar  

Kothari A, Wathen CN. Integrated knowledge translation: digging deeper, moving forward. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71:619–23. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-208490 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A, Boyko J, Urquhart R. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0399-1 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research - CIHR. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html . Accessed 20 Sep 2017.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute website. https://www.pcori.org/ . Accessed 20 Sep 2017.

National Institute for Health Research. INVOLVE | INVOLVE Supporting public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. http://www.invo.org.uk/ . Accessed 27 Sep 2017.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. SPOR SUPPORT Units - CIHR. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45859.html . Accessed 27 Sep 2017.

Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25:626–32.

Hearld KR, Hearld LR, Hall AG. Engaging patients as partners in research: factors associated with awareness, interest, and engagement as research partners. SAGE open Med. 2017;5:2050312116686709. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312116686709.

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-89 .

Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, Patel K, Wong JB, Leslie LK, et al. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:1692–701.

Oostendorp LJM, Durand M-A, Lloyd A, Elwyn G. Measuring organisational readiness for patient engagement (MORE): an international online Delphi consensus study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0717-3 .

Boddy K, Cowan K, Gibson A, Britten N. Does funded research reflect the priorities of people living with type 1 diabetes? A secondary analysis of research questions. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e016540. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016540 .

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Krefting L. Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45:214–22.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory : a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications; 2006.

Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, McNeilly E, Goodman C, Howe A, et al. ReseArch with patient and public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study. Heal Serv Deliv Res. 2015;3:1–176. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr03380 .

Corbin JM, Strauss AL, Strauss AL. Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2008.

Keith RE, Crosson JC, O’Malley AS, Cromp D, Taylor EF. Using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) to produce actionable findings: a rapid-cycle evaluation approach to improving implementation. Implement Sci. 2017;12:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0550-7 .

Esmail L, Moore E. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4:133–45. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.14.79 .

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–95.

Rowland P, McMillan S, McGillicuddy P, Richards J. What is “the patient perspective” in patient engagement programs? Implicit logics and parallels to feminist theories. Heal An Interdiscip J Soc Study Heal Illn Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459316644494 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Martin GP. “Ordinary people only”: knowledge, representativeness, and the publics of public participation in healthcare. Sociol Health Illn. 2008;30:35–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01027.x .

Snow B, Tweedie K, Pederson A, Shrestha H, Bachmann L. Patient Engagement: Heard and valued. 2013. http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/patient-engagement/awesome_workbook-fraserhealth.pdf . Accessed 24 Jan 2018.

Montesanti SR, Abelson J, Lavis JN, Dunn JR. Enabling the participation of marginalized populations: case studies from a health service organization in Ontario. Canada Health Promot Int. 2017;32(4):636–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dav118.

The Change Foundation. Should Money Come into It? A Tool for Deciding Whether to Pay Patient- Engagement Participants. Toronto; 2015. http://www.changefoundation.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Should-money-come-into-it.pdf . Accessed 18 June 2018

INVOLVE. Involvement Cost Calculator | INVOLVE. http://www.invo.org.uk/resource-centre/payment-and-recognition-for-public-involvement/involvement-cost-calculator/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2017.

Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.

Kerr C, Nixon A, Wild D. Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):269–81. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.10.30 .

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CIHR’S Citizen Engagement Handbook. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/ce_handbook_e.pdf . Accessed 18 June 2018.

Elliott J, Heesterbeek S, Lukensmeyer CJ, Slocum N. Participatory and deliberative methods toolkit how to connect with citizens: a practitioner’s manual. King Baudouin Foundation; 2005. https://www.kbs-frb.be/en/Virtual-Library/2006/294864 . Accessed 28 Sep 2017.

Robbins M, Tufte J, Hsu C. Learning to “swim” with the experts: experiences of two patient co-investigators for a project funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Perm J. 2016;20:85–8.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gauvin F-P, Abelson J, Lavis JN. Strengthening public and patient engagement in health technology assessment in Ontario. 2014. https://www.mcmasterforum.org/docs/default-source/product-documents/evidence-briefs/public-engagement-in-health-technology-assessement-in-ontario-eb.pdf?sfvrsn=2 . Accessed 18 June 2018.

Abelson J, Montesanti S, Li K, Gauvin F-P, Martin E. Effective strategies for interactive public engagement in the development of healthcare policies and Programs. 2010; https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/commissionedresearch-reports/Abelson_EN_FINAL.pdf?sfvrsn=0. . Accessed 16 Nov 2018.

Abelson J. Public and patient engagement evaluation tool (version 1.0), vol. 0; 2015. https://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/publicandpatientengagement/ppeet_request_form.html ! Accessed 18 June 2018

Johnson DS, Bush MT, Brandzel S, Wernli KJ. The patient voice in research—evolution of a role. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0020-4 .

Crocker JC, Boylan AM, Bostock J, Locock L. Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK-based qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2017;20(3):519–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12479 .

Renedo A, Marston C. Healthcare professionals’ representations of “patient and public involvement” and creation of “public participant” identities: implications for the development of inclusive and bottom-up community participation initiatives. J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2011;21:268–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1092 .

Hahn DL, Hoffmann AE, Felzien M, LeMaster JW, Xu J, Fagnan LJ. Tokenism in patient engagement. Fam Pract. 2017;34(3):290–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw097.

Hart C, Poole JM, Facey ME, Parsons JA. Holding firm: power, push-Back, and opportunities in navigating the liminal space of critical qualitative Health Research. Qual Health Res. 2017;27:1765–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317715631 .

Eakin JM. Educating critical qualitative health researchers in the land of the randomized controlled trial. Qual Inq. 2016;22:107–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800415617207 .

Safo S, Cunningham C, Beckman A, Haughton L, Starrels JL. “A place at the table:” a qualitative analysis of community board members’ experiences with academic HIV/AIDS research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0181-8 .

Thompson J, Bissell P, Cooper C, Armitage CJ, Barber R, Walker S, et al. Credibility and the “professionalized” lay expert: reflections on the dilemmas and opportunities of public involvement in health research. Heal Interdiscip J Soc Study Heal Illn Med. 2012;16:602–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459312441008 .

Burke JG, Jones J, Yonas M, Guizzetti L, Virata MC, Costlow M, et al. PCOR, CER, and CBPR: alphabet soup or complementary fields of Health Research? Clin Transl Sci. 2013;6:493–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12064 .

Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J, Macaulay AC, Greenhalgh T, Wong G, et al. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:725. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1 .

Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90:311–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x .

Government of Canada IAP on RE. TCPS 2 - Chapter 9 Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/chapter9-chapitre9/ . Accessed 16 Oct 2017.

Ramsden VR, Crowe J, Rabbitskin N, Rolfe D, Macaulay A. Authentic engagement, co-creation and action research. In: Goodyear-smith F, Mash B, editors. How to do primary care research. Boca Raton: CRC press, medicine, Taylor & Francis Group; 2019.

Ramsden VR, Salsberg J, Herbert CP, Westfall JM, LeMaster J, Macaulay AC. Patient- and community-oriented research: how is authentic engagement identified in grant applications? Can Fam Physician. 2017;63:74–6.

Woolf SH, Zimmerman E, Haley A, Krist AH. Authentic engagement of patients and communities can transform research, practice, and policy. Health Aff. 2016;35:590–4.

Parkes JH, Pyer M, Wray P, Taylor J. Partners in projects: preparing for public involvement in health and social care research. Health Policy. 2014;117:399–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.014 .

Norman N, Bennett C, Cowart S, Felzien M, Flores M, Flores R, et al. Boot camp translation: a method for building a community of solution. J Am Board Fam Med. 2013;26:254–63. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2013.03.120253 .

Ramsden VR, Rabbitskin N, Westfall JM, Felzien M, Braden J, Sand J. Is knowledge translation without patient or community engagement flawed. Fam Pract. 2016:1–3.

Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. SAGE Handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005.

Pearce V, Baraitser P, Smith G, Greenhalgh T. Experience-based co-design. In: User involvement in health care. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444325164.ch3 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hulatt I, Lowes L. Involving service users in health and social care research: Routledge; 2005. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203865651.

Book   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was drafted in response to a call for concept papers related to integrated knowledge translation issued by the Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network (CIHR FDN #143237).

This paper was commissioned by the Integrated Knowledge Translation Network (IKTRN). The IKTRN brings together knowledge users and researchers to advance the science and practice of integrated knowledge translation and train the next generation of integrated knowledge translation researchers. Honorariums were provided for completed papers. The IKTRN is funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundation Grant (FDN #143247).

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 307D- 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, ON, K1G 5Z3, Canada

Danielle E. Rolfe & Ian D. Graham

Department of Academic Family Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, West Winds Primary Health Centre, 3311 Fairlight Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7M 3Y5, Canada

Vivian R. Ramsden

School of Nursing, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2K4C6, Canada

Davina Banner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DR conceived and drafted this paper. All authors were involved in critiquing and revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle E. Rolfe .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rolfe, D.E., Ramsden, V.R., Banner, D. et al. Using qualitative Health Research methods to improve patient and public involvement and engagement in research. Res Involv Engagem 4 , 49 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0129-8

Download citation

Received : 18 June 2018

Accepted : 09 November 2018

Published : 13 December 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0129-8

Share this article

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

• Qualitative methods
• Qualitative health research
• Patient-oriented research
• Integrated knowledge translation
• Patient engagement
• Patient partners
• Patient and public involvement

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Practical thematic...

Practical thematic analysis: a guide for multidisciplinary health services research teams engaging in qualitative analysis

• Related content
• Peer review
• Catherine H Saunders , scientist and assistant professor 1 2 ,
• Ailyn Sierpe , research project coordinator 2 ,
• Christian von Plessen , senior physician 3 ,
• Alice M Kennedy , research project manager 2 4 ,
• Laura C Leviton , senior adviser 5 ,
• Steven L Bernstein , chief research officer 1 ,
• Jenaya Goldwag , resident physician 1 ,
• Joel R King , research assistant 2 ,
• Christine M Marx , patient associate 6 ,
• Jacqueline A Pogue , research project manager 2 ,
• Richard K Saunders , staff physician 1 ,
• Aricca Van Citters , senior research scientist 2 ,
• Renata W Yen , doctoral student 2 ,
• Glyn Elwyn , professor 2 ,
• JoAnna K Leyenaar , associate professor 1 2
• on behalf of the Coproduction Laboratory
• 1 Dartmouth Health, Lebanon, NH, USA
• 2 Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA
• 3 Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland
• 4 Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden
• 5 Highland Park, NJ, USA
• 6 Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
• Correspondence to: C H Saunders catherine.hylas.saunders{at}dartmouth.edu
• Accepted 26 April 2023

Qualitative research methods explore and provide deep contextual understanding of real world issues, including people’s beliefs, perspectives, and experiences. Whether through analysis of interviews, focus groups, structured observation, or multimedia data, qualitative methods offer unique insights in applied health services research that other approaches cannot deliver. However, many clinicians and researchers hesitate to use these methods, or might not use them effectively, which can leave relevant areas of inquiry inadequately explored. Thematic analysis is one of the most common and flexible methods to examine qualitative data collected in health services research. This article offers practical thematic analysis as a step-by-step approach to qualitative analysis for health services researchers, with a focus on accessibility for patients, care partners, clinicians, and others new to thematic analysis. Along with detailed instructions covering three steps of reading, coding, and theming, the article includes additional novel and practical guidance on how to draft effective codes, conduct a thematic analysis session, and develop meaningful themes. This approach aims to improve consistency and rigor in thematic analysis, while also making this method more accessible for multidisciplinary research teams.

Through qualitative methods, researchers can provide deep contextual understanding of real world issues, and generate new knowledge to inform hypotheses, theories, research, and clinical care. Approaches to data collection are varied, including interviews, focus groups, structured observation, and analysis of multimedia data, with qualitative research questions aimed at understanding the how and why of human experience. 1 2 Qualitative methods produce unique insights in applied health services research that other approaches cannot deliver. In particular, researchers acknowledge that thematic analysis is a flexible and powerful method of systematically generating robust qualitative research findings by identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. 3 4 5 6 Although qualitative methods are increasingly valued for answering clinical research questions, many researchers are unsure how to apply them or consider them too time consuming to be useful in responding to practical challenges 7 or pressing situations such as public health emergencies. 8 Consequently, researchers might hesitate to use them, or use them improperly. 9 10 11

Although much has been written about how to perform thematic analysis, practical guidance for non-specialists is sparse. 3 5 6 12 13 In the multidisciplinary field of health services research, qualitative data analysis can confound experienced researchers and novices alike, which can stoke concerns about rigor, particularly for those more familiar with quantitative approaches. 14 Since qualitative methods are an area of specialisation, support from experts is beneficial. However, because non-specialist perspectives can enhance data interpretation and enrich findings, there is a case for making thematic analysis easier, more rapid, and more efficient, 8 particularly for patients, care partners, clinicians, and other stakeholders. A practical guide to thematic analysis might encourage those on the ground to use these methods in their work, unearthing insights that would otherwise remain undiscovered.

Given the need for more accessible qualitative analysis approaches, we present a simple, rigorous, and efficient three step guide for practical thematic analysis. We include new guidance on the mechanics of thematic analysis, including developing codes, constructing meaningful themes, and hosting a thematic analysis session. We also discuss common pitfalls in thematic analysis and how to avoid them.

Summary points

Qualitative methods are increasingly valued in applied health services research, but multidisciplinary research teams often lack accessible step-by-step guidance and might struggle to use these approaches

A newly developed approach, practical thematic analysis, uses three simple steps: reading, coding, and theming

Based on Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis, our streamlined yet rigorous approach is designed for multidisciplinary health services research teams, including patients, care partners, and clinicians

This article also provides companion materials including a slide presentation for teaching practical thematic analysis to research teams, a sample thematic analysis session agenda, a theme coproduction template for use during the session, and guidance on using standardised reporting criteria for qualitative research

In their seminal work, Braun and Clarke developed a six phase approach to reflexive thematic analysis. 4 12 We built on their method to develop practical thematic analysis ( box 1 , fig 1 ), which is a simplified and instructive approach that retains the substantive elements of their six phases. Braun and Clarke’s phase 1 (familiarising yourself with the dataset) is represented in our first step of reading. Phase 2 (coding) remains as our second step of coding. Phases 3 (generating initial themes), 4 (developing and reviewing themes), and 5 (refining, defining, and naming themes) are represented in our third step of theming. Phase 6 (writing up) also occurs during this third step of theming, but after a thematic analysis session. 4 12

Key features and applications of practical thematic analysis

Step 1: reading.

All manuscript authors read the data

All manuscript authors write summary memos

Step 2: Coding

Coders perform both data management and early data analysis

Codes are complete thoughts or sentences, not categories

Step 3: Theming

Researchers host a thematic analysis session and share different perspectives

Themes are complete thoughts or sentences, not categories

Applications

For use by practicing clinicians, patients and care partners, students, interdisciplinary teams, and those new to qualitative research

When important insights from healthcare professionals are inaccessible because they do not have qualitative methods training

When time and resources are limited

Steps in practical thematic analysis

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

We present linear steps, but as qualitative research is usually iterative, so too is thematic analysis. 15 Qualitative researchers circle back to earlier work to check whether their interpretations still make sense in the light of additional insights, adapting as necessary. While we focus here on the practical application of thematic analysis in health services research, we recognise our approach exists in the context of the broader literature on thematic analysis and the theoretical underpinnings of qualitative methods as a whole. For a more detailed discussion of these theoretical points, as well as other methods widely used in health services research, we recommend reviewing the sources outlined in supplemental material 1. A strong and nuanced understanding of the context and underlying principles of thematic analysis will allow for higher quality research. 16

Practical thematic analysis is a highly flexible approach that can draw out valuable findings and generate new hypotheses, including in cases with a lack of previous research to build on. The approach can also be used with a variety of data, such as transcripts from interviews or focus groups, patient encounter transcripts, professional publications, observational field notes, and online activity logs. Importantly, successful practical thematic analysis is predicated on having high quality data collected with rigorous methods. We do not describe qualitative research design or data collection here. 11 17

In supplemental material 1, we summarise the foundational methods, concepts, and terminology in qualitative research. Along with our guide below, we include a companion slide presentation for teaching practical thematic analysis to research teams in supplemental material 2. We provide a theme coproduction template for teams to use during thematic analysis sessions in supplemental material 3. Our method aligns with the major qualitative reporting frameworks, including the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). 18 We indicate the corresponding step in practical thematic analysis for each COREQ item in supplemental material 4.

Familiarisation and memoing

We encourage all manuscript authors to review the full dataset (eg, interview transcripts) to familiarise themselves with it. This task is most critical for those who will later be engaged in the coding and theming steps. Although time consuming, it is the best way to involve team members in the intellectual work of data interpretation, so that they can contribute to the analysis and contextualise the results. If this task is not feasible given time limitations or large quantities of data, the data can be divided across team members. In this case, each piece of data should be read by at least two individuals who ideally represent different professional roles or perspectives.

We recommend that researchers reflect on the data and independently write memos, defined as brief notes on thoughts and questions that arise during reading, and a summary of their impressions of the dataset. 2 19 Memoing is an opportunity to gain insights from varying perspectives, particularly from patients, care partners, clinicians, and others. It also gives researchers the opportunity to begin to scope which elements of and concepts in the dataset are relevant to the research question.

Data saturation

The concept of data saturation ( box 2 ) is a foundation of qualitative research. It is defined as the point in analysis at which new data tend to be redundant of data already collected. 21 Qualitative researchers are expected to report their approach to data saturation. 18 Because thematic analysis is iterative, the team should discuss saturation throughout the entire process, beginning with data collection and continuing through all steps of the analysis. 22 During step 1 (reading), team members might discuss data saturation in the context of summary memos. Conversations about saturation continue during step 2 (coding), with confirmation that saturation has been achieved during step 3 (theming). As a rule of thumb, researchers can often achieve saturation in 9-17 interviews or 4-8 focus groups, but this will vary depending on the specific characteristics of the study. 23

Data saturation in context

Braun and Clarke discourage the use of data saturation to determine sample size (eg, number of interviews), because it assumes that there is an objective truth to be captured in the data (sometimes known as a positivist perspective). 20 Qualitative researchers often try to avoid positivist approaches, arguing that there is no one true way of seeing the world, and will instead aim to gather multiple perspectives. 5 Although this theoretical debate with qualitative methods is important, we recognise that a priori estimates of saturation are often needed, particularly for investigators newer to qualitative research who might want a more pragmatic and applied approach. In addition, saturation based, sample size estimation can be particularly helpful in grant proposals. However, researchers should still follow a priori sample size estimation with a discussion to confirm saturation has been achieved.

Definition of coding

We describe codes as labels for concepts in the data that are directly relevant to the study objective. Historically, the purpose of coding was to distil the large amount of data collected into conceptually similar buckets so that researchers could review it in aggregate and identify key themes. 5 24 We advocate for a more analytical approach than is typical with thematic analysis. With our method, coding is both the foundation for and the beginning of thematic analysis—that is, early data analysis, management, and reduction occur simultaneously rather than as different steps. This approach moves the team more efficiently towards being able to describe themes.

Building the coding team

Coders are the research team members who directly assign codes to the data, reading all material and systematically labelling relevant data with appropriate codes. Ideally, at least two researchers would code every discrete data document, such as one interview transcript. 25 If this task is not possible, individual coders can each code a subset of the data that is carefully selected for key characteristics (sometimes known as purposive selection). 26 When using this approach, we recommend that at least 10% of data be coded by two or more coders to ensure consistency in codebook application. We also recommend coding teams of no more than four to five people, for practical reasons concerning maintaining consistency.

Clinicians, patients, and care partners bring unique perspectives to coding and enrich the analytical process. 27 Therefore, we recommend choosing coders with a mix of relevant experiences so that they can challenge and contextualise each other’s interpretations based on their own perspectives and opinions ( box 3 ). We recommend including both coders who collected the data and those who are naive to it, if possible, given their different perspectives. We also recommend all coders review the summary memos from the reading step so that key concepts identified by those not involved in coding can be integrated into the analytical process. In practice, this review means coding the memos themselves and discussing them during the code development process. This approach ensures that the team considers a diversity of perspectives.

Coding teams in context

The recommendation to use multiple coders is a departure from Braun and Clarke. 28 29 When the views, experiences, and training of each coder (sometimes known as positionality) 30 are carefully considered, having multiple coders can enhance interpretation and enrich findings. When these perspectives are combined in a team setting, researchers can create shared meaning from the data. Along with the practical consideration of distributing the workload, 31 inclusion of these multiple perspectives increases the overall quality of the analysis by mitigating the impact of any one coder’s perspective. 30

Coding tools

Qualitative analysis software facilitates coding and managing large datasets but does not perform the analytical work. The researchers must perform the analysis themselves. Most programs support queries and collaborative coding by multiple users. 32 Important factors to consider when choosing software can include accessibility, cost, interoperability, the look and feel of code reports, and the ease of colour coding and merging codes. Coders can also use low tech solutions, including highlighters, word processors, or spreadsheets.

Drafting effective codes

To draft effective codes, we recommend that the coders review each document line by line. 33 As they progress, they can assign codes to segments of data representing passages of interest. 34 Coders can also assign multiple codes to the same passage. Consensus among coders on what constitutes a minimum or maximum amount of text for assigning a code is helpful. As a general rule, meaningful segments of text for coding are shorter than one paragraph, but longer than a few words. Coders should keep the study objective in mind when determining which data are relevant ( box 4 ).

Code types in context

Similar to Braun and Clarke’s approach, practical thematic analysis does not specify whether codes are based on what is evident from the data (sometimes known as semantic) or whether they are based on what can be inferred at a deeper level from the data (sometimes known as latent). 4 12 35 It also does not specify whether they are derived from the data (sometimes known as inductive) or determined ahead of time (sometimes known as deductive). 11 35 Instead, it should be noted that health services researchers conducting qualitative studies often adopt all these approaches to coding (sometimes known as hybrid analysis). 3

In practical thematic analysis, codes should be more descriptive than general categorical labels that simply group data with shared characteristics. At a minimum, codes should form a complete (or full) thought. An easy way to conceptualise full thought codes is as complete sentences with subjects and verbs ( table 1 ), although full sentence coding is not always necessary. With full thought codes, researchers think about the data more deeply and capture this insight in the codes. This coding facilitates the entire analytical process and is especially valuable when moving from codes to broader themes. Experienced qualitative researchers often intuitively use full thought or sentence codes, but this practice has not been explicitly articulated as a path to higher quality coding elsewhere in the literature. 6

Example transcript with codes used in practical thematic analysis 36

• View inline

Depending on the nature of the data, codes might either fall into flat categories or be arranged hierarchically. Flat categories are most common when the data deal with topics on the same conceptual level. In other words, one topic is not a subset of another topic. By contrast, hierarchical codes are more appropriate for concepts that naturally fall above or below each other. Hierarchical coding can also be a useful form of data management and might be necessary when working with a large or complex dataset. 5 Codes grouped into these categories can also make it easier to naturally transition into generating themes from the initial codes. 5 These decisions between flat versus hierarchical coding are part of the work of the coding team. In both cases, coders should ensure that their code structures are guided by their research questions.

Developing the codebook

A codebook is a shared document that lists code labels and comprehensive descriptions for each code, as well as examples observed within the data. Good code descriptions are precise and specific so that coders can consistently assign the same codes to relevant data or articulate why another coder would do so. Codebook development is iterative and involves input from the entire coding team. However, as those closest to the data, coders must resist undue influence, real or perceived, from other team members with conflicting opinions—it is important to mitigate the risk that more senior researchers, like principal investigators, exert undue influence on the coders’ perspectives.

In practical thematic analysis, coders begin codebook development by independently coding a small portion of the data, such as two to three transcripts or other units of analysis. Coders then individually produce their initial codebooks. This task will require them to reflect on, organise, and clarify codes. The coders then meet to reconcile the draft codebooks, which can often be difficult, as some coders tend to lump several concepts together while others will split them into more specific codes. Discussing disagreements and negotiating consensus are necessary parts of early data analysis. Once the codebook is relatively stable, we recommend soliciting input on the codes from all manuscript authors. Yet, coders must ultimately be empowered to finalise the details so that they are comfortable working with the codebook across a large quantity of data.

Assigning codes to the data

After developing the codebook, coders will use it to assign codes to the remaining data. While the codebook’s overall structure should remain constant, coders might continue to add codes corresponding to any new concepts observed in the data. If new codes are added, coders should review the data they have already coded and determine whether the new codes apply. Qualitative data analysis software can be useful for editing or merging codes.

We recommend that coders periodically compare their code occurrences ( box 5 ), with more frequent check-ins if substantial disagreements occur. In the event of large discrepancies in the codes assigned, coders should revise the codebook to ensure that code descriptions are sufficiently clear and comprehensive to support coding alignment going forward. Because coding is an iterative process, the team can adjust the codebook as needed. 5 28 29

Quantitative coding in context

Researchers should generally avoid reporting code counts in thematic analysis. However, counts can be a useful proxy in maintaining alignment between coders on key concepts. 26 In practice, therefore, researchers should make sure that all coders working on the same piece of data assign the same codes with a similar pattern and that their memoing and overall assessment of the data are aligned. 37 However, the frequency of a code alone is not an indicator of its importance. It is more important that coders agree on the most salient points in the data; reviewing and discussing summary memos can be helpful here. 5

Researchers might disagree on whether or not to calculate and report inter-rater reliability. We note that quantitative tests for agreement, such as kappa statistics or intraclass correlation coefficients, can be distracting and might not provide meaningful results in qualitative analyses. Similarly, Braun and Clarke argue that expecting perfect alignment on coding is inconsistent with the goal of co-constructing meaning. 28 29 Overall consensus on codes’ salience and contributions to themes is the most important factor.

Definition of themes

Themes are meta-constructs that rise above codes and unite the dataset ( box 6 , fig 2 ). They should be clearly evident, repeated throughout the dataset, and relevant to the research questions. 38 While codes are often explicit descriptions of the content in the dataset, themes are usually more conceptual and knit the codes together. 39 Some researchers hypothesise that theme development is loosely described in the literature because qualitative researchers simply intuit themes during the analytical process. 39 In practical thematic analysis, we offer a concrete process that should make developing meaningful themes straightforward.

Themes in context

According to Braun and Clarke, a theme “captures something important about the data in relation to the research question and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set.” 4 Similarly, Braun and Clarke advise against themes as domain summaries. While different approaches can draw out themes from codes, the process begins by identifying patterns. 28 35 Like Braun and Clarke and others, we recommend that researchers consider the salience of certain themes, their prevalence in the dataset, and their keyness (ie, how relevant the themes are to the overarching research questions). 4 12 34

Use of themes in practical thematic analysis

Constructing meaningful themes

After coding all the data, each coder should independently reflect on the team’s summary memos (step 1), the codebook (step 2), and the coded data itself to develop draft themes (step 3). It can be illuminating for coders to review all excerpts associated with each code, so that they derive themes directly from the data. Researchers should remain focused on the research question during this step, so that themes have a clear relation with the overall project aim. Use of qualitative analysis software will make it easy to view each segment of data tagged with each code. Themes might neatly correspond to groups of codes. Or—more likely—they will unite codes and data in unexpected ways. A whiteboard or presentation slides might be helpful to organise, craft, and revise themes. We also provide a template for coproducing themes (supplemental material 3). As with codebook justification, team members will ideally produce individual drafts of the themes that they have identified in the data. They can then discuss these with the group and reach alignment or consensus on the final themes.

The team should ensure that all themes are salient, meaning that they are: supported by the data, relevant to the study objectives, and important. Similar to codes, themes are framed as complete thoughts or sentences, not categories. While codes and themes might appear to be similar to each other, the key distinction is that the themes represent a broader concept. Table 2 shows examples of codes and their corresponding themes from a previously published project that used practical thematic analysis. 36 Identifying three to four key themes that comprise a broader overarching theme is a useful approach. Themes can also have subthemes, if appropriate. 40 41 42 43 44

Example codes with themes in practical thematic analysis 36

Thematic analysis session

After each coder has independently produced draft themes, a carefully selected subset of the manuscript team meets for a thematic analysis session ( table 3 ). The purpose of this session is to discuss and reach alignment or consensus on the final themes. We recommend a session of three to five hours, either in-person or virtually.

Example agenda of thematic analysis session

The composition of the thematic analysis session team is important, as each person’s perspectives will shape the results. This group is usually a small subset of the broader research team, with three to seven individuals. We recommend that primary and senior authors work together to include people with diverse experiences related to the research topic. They should aim for a range of personalities and professional identities, particularly those of clinicians, trainees, patients, and care partners. At a minimum, all coders and primary and senior authors should participate in the thematic analysis session.

The session begins with each coder presenting their draft themes with supporting quotes from the data. 5 Through respectful and collaborative deliberation, the group will develop a shared set of final themes.

One team member facilitates the session. A firm, confident, and consistent facilitation style with good listening skills is critical. For practical reasons, this person is not usually one of the primary coders. Hierarchies in teams cannot be entirely flattened, but acknowledging them and appointing an external facilitator can reduce their impact. The facilitator can ensure that all voices are heard. For example, they might ask for perspectives from patient partners or more junior researchers, and follow up on comments from senior researchers to say, “We have heard your perspective and it is important; we want to make sure all perspectives in the room are equally considered.” Or, “I hear [senior person] is offering [x] idea, I’d like to hear other perspectives in the room.” The role of the facilitator is critical in the thematic analysis session. The facilitator might also privately discuss with more senior researchers, such as principal investigators and senior authors, the importance of being aware of their influence over others and respecting and eliciting the perspectives of more junior researchers, such as patients, care partners, and students.

To our knowledge, this discrete thematic analysis session is a novel contribution of practical thematic analysis. It helps efficiently incorporate diverse perspectives using the session agenda and theme coproduction template (supplemental material 3) and makes the process of constructing themes transparent to the entire research team.

Writing the report

We recommend beginning the results narrative with a summary of all relevant themes emerging from the analysis, followed by a subheading for each theme. Each subsection begins with a brief description of the theme and is illustrated with relevant quotes, which are contextualised and explained. The write-up should not simply be a list, but should contain meaningful analysis and insight from the researchers, including descriptions of how different stakeholders might have experienced a particular situation differently or unexpectedly.

In addition to weaving quotes into the results narrative, quotes can be presented in a table. This strategy is a particularly helpful when submitting to clinical journals with tight word count limitations. Quote tables might also be effective in illustrating areas of agreement and disagreement across stakeholder groups, with columns representing different groups and rows representing each theme or subtheme. Quotes should include an anonymous label for each participant and any relevant characteristics, such as role or gender. The aim is to produce rich descriptions. 5 We recommend against repeating quotations across multiple themes in the report, so as to avoid confusion. The template for coproducing themes (supplemental material 3) allows documentation of quotes supporting each theme, which might also be useful during report writing.

Visual illustrations such as a thematic map or figure of the findings can help communicate themes efficiently. 4 36 42 44 If a figure is not possible, a simple list can suffice. 36 Both must clearly present the main themes with subthemes. Thematic figures can facilitate confirmation that the researchers’ interpretations reflect the study populations’ perspectives (sometimes known as member checking), because authors can invite discussions about the figure and descriptions of findings and supporting quotes. 46 This process can enhance the validity of the results. 46

In supplemental material 4, we provide additional guidance on reporting thematic analysis consistent with COREQ. 18 Commonly used in health services research, COREQ outlines a standardised list of items to be included in qualitative research reports ( box 7 ).

Reporting in context

We note that use of COREQ or any other reporting guidelines does not in itself produce high quality work and should not be used as a substitute for general methodological rigor. Rather, researchers must consider rigor throughout the entire research process. As the issue of how to conceptualise and achieve rigorous qualitative research continues to be debated, 47 48 we encourage researchers to explicitly discuss how they have looked at methodological rigor in their reports. Specifically, we point researchers to Braun and Clarke’s 2021 tool for evaluating thematic analysis manuscripts for publication (“Twenty questions to guide assessment of TA [thematic analysis] research quality”). 16

Avoiding common pitfalls

Awareness of common mistakes can help researchers avoid improper use of qualitative methods. Improper use can, for example, prevent researchers from developing meaningful themes and can risk drawing inappropriate conclusions from the data. Braun and Clarke also warn of poor quality in qualitative research, noting that “coherence and integrity of published research does not always hold.” 16

Weak themes

An important distinction between high and low quality themes is that high quality themes are descriptive and complete thoughts. As such, they often contain subjects and verbs, and can be expressed as full sentences ( table 2 ). Themes that are simply descriptive categories or topics could fail to impart meaningful knowledge beyond categorisation. 16 49 50

Researchers will often move from coding directly to writing up themes, without performing the work of theming or hosting a thematic analysis session. Skipping concerted theming often results in themes that look more like categories than unifying threads across the data.

Unfocused analysis

Because data collection for qualitative research is often semi-structured (eg, interviews, focus groups), not all data will be directly relevant to the research question at hand. To avoid unfocused analysis and a correspondingly unfocused manuscript, we recommend that all team members keep the research objective in front of them at every stage, from reading to coding to theming. During the thematic analysis session, we recommend that the research question be written on a whiteboard so that all team members can refer back to it, and so that the facilitator can ensure that conversations about themes occur in the context of this question. Consistently focusing on the research question can help to ensure that the final report directly answers it, as opposed to the many other interesting insights that might emerge during the qualitative research process. Such insights can be picked up in a secondary analysis if desired.

Inappropriate quantification

Presenting findings quantitatively (eg, “We found 18 instances of participants mentioning safety concerns about the vaccines”) is generally undesirable in practical thematic analysis reporting. 51 Descriptive terms are more appropriate (eg, “participants had substantial concerns about the vaccines,” or “several participants were concerned about this”). This descriptive presentation is critical because qualitative data might not be consistently elicited across participants, meaning that some individuals might share certain information while others do not, simply based on how conversations evolve. Additionally, qualitative research does not aim to draw inferences outside its specific sample. Emphasising numbers in thematic analysis can lead to readers incorrectly generalising the findings. Although peer reviewers unfamiliar with thematic analysis often request this type of quantification, practitioners of practical thematic analysis can confidently defend their decision to avoid it. If quantification is methodologically important, we recommend simultaneously conducting a survey or incorporating standardised interview techniques into the interview guide. 11

Neglecting group dynamics

Researchers should concertedly consider group dynamics in the research team. Particular attention should be paid to power relations and the personality of team members, which can include aspects such as who most often speaks, who defines concepts, and who resolves disagreements that might arise within the group. 52

The perspectives of patient and care partners are particularly important to cultivate. Ideally, patient partners are meaningfully embedded in studies from start to finish, not just for practical thematic analysis. 53 Meaningful engagement can build trust, which makes it easier for patient partners to ask questions, request clarification, and share their perspectives. Professional team members should actively encourage patient partners by emphasising that their expertise is critically important and valued. Noting when a patient partner might be best positioned to offer their perspective can be particularly powerful.

Insufficient time allocation

Researchers must allocate enough time to complete thematic analysis. Working with qualitative data takes time, especially because it is often not a linear process. As the strength of thematic analysis lies in its ability to make use of the rich details and complexities of the data, we recommend careful planning for the time required to read and code each document.

Estimating the necessary time can be challenging. For step 1 (reading), researchers can roughly calculate the time required based on the time needed to read and reflect on one piece of data. For step 2 (coding), the total amount of time needed can be extrapolated from the time needed to code one document during codebook development. We also recommend three to five hours for the thematic analysis session itself, although coders will need to independently develop their draft themes beforehand. Although the time required for practical thematic analysis is variable, teams should be able to estimate their own required effort with these guidelines.

Practical thematic analysis builds on the foundational work of Braun and Clarke. 4 16 We have reframed their six phase process into three condensed steps of reading, coding, and theming. While we have maintained important elements of Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis, we believe that practical thematic analysis is conceptually simpler and easier to teach to less experienced researchers and non-researcher stakeholders. For teams with different levels of familiarity with qualitative methods, this approach presents a clear roadmap to the reading, coding, and theming of qualitative data. Our practical thematic analysis approach promotes efficient learning by doing—experiential learning. 12 29 Practical thematic analysis avoids the risk of relying on complex descriptions of methods and theory and places more emphasis on obtaining meaningful insights from those close to real world clinical environments. Although practical thematic analysis can be used to perform intensive theory based analyses, it lends itself more readily to accelerated, pragmatic approaches.

Strengths and limitations

Our approach is designed to smooth the qualitative analysis process and yield high quality themes. Yet, researchers should note that poorly performed analyses will still produce low quality results. Practical thematic analysis is a qualitative analytical approach; it does not look at study design, data collection, or other important elements of qualitative research. It also might not be the right choice for every qualitative research project. We recommend it for applied health services research questions, where diverse perspectives and simplicity might be valuable.

We also urge researchers to improve internal validity through triangulation methods, such as member checking (supplemental material 1). 46 Member checking could include soliciting input on high level themes, theme definitions, and quotations from participants. This approach might increase rigor.

Implications

We hope that by providing clear and simple instructions for practical thematic analysis, a broader range of researchers will be more inclined to use these methods. Increased transparency and familiarity with qualitative approaches can enhance researchers’ ability to both interpret qualitative studies and offer up new findings themselves. In addition, it can have usefulness in training and reporting. A major strength of this approach is to facilitate meaningful inclusion of patient and care partner perspectives, because their lived experiences can be particularly valuable in data interpretation and the resulting findings. 11 30 As clinicians are especially pressed for time, they might also appreciate a practical set of instructions that can be immediately used to leverage their insights and access to patients and clinical settings, and increase the impact of qualitative research through timely results. 8

Practical thematic analysis is a simplified approach to performing thematic analysis in health services research, a field where the experiences of patients, care partners, and clinicians are of inherent interest. We hope that it will be accessible to those individuals new to qualitative methods, including patients, care partners, clinicians, and other health services researchers. We intend to empower multidisciplinary research teams to explore unanswered questions and make new, important, and rigorous contributions to our understanding of important clinical and health systems research.

Acknowledgments

All members of the Coproduction Laboratory provided input that shaped this manuscript during laboratory meetings. We acknowledge advice from Elizabeth Carpenter-Song, an expert in qualitative methods.

Coproduction Laboratory group contributors: Stephanie C Acquilano ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1215-5531 ), Julie Doherty ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5279-6536 ), Rachel C Forcino ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9938-4830 ), Tina Foster ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6239-4031 ), Megan Holthoff, Christopher R Jacobs ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5324-8657 ), Lisa C Johnson ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7448-4931 ), Elaine T Kiriakopoulos, Kathryn Kirkland ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9851-926X ), Meredith A MacMartin ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6614-6091 ), Emily A Morgan, Eugene Nelson, Elizabeth O’Donnell, Brant Oliver ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7399-622X ), Danielle Schubbe ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9858-1805 ), Gabrielle Stevens ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9001-178X ), Rachael P Thomeer ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5974-3840 ).

Contributors: Practical thematic analysis, an approach designed for multidisciplinary health services teams new to qualitative research, was based on CHS’s experiences teaching thematic analysis to clinical teams and students. We have drawn heavily from qualitative methods literature. CHS is the guarantor of the article. CHS, AS, CvP, AMK, JRK, and JAP contributed to drafting the manuscript. AS, JG, CMM, JAP, and RWY provided feedback on their experiences using practical thematic analysis. CvP, LCL, SLB, AVC, GE, and JKL advised on qualitative methods in health services research, given extensive experience. All authors meaningfully edited the manuscript content, including AVC and RKS. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Funding: This manuscript did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

• Ziebland S ,
• ↵ A Hybrid Approach to Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research: Using a Practical Example. 2018. https://methods.sagepub.com/case/hybrid-approach-thematic-analysis-qualitative-research-a-practical-example .
• Maguire M ,
• Vindrola-Padros C ,
• Vindrola-Padros B
• ↵ Vindrola-Padros C. Rapid Ethnographies: A Practical Guide . Cambridge University Press 2021. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=n80HEAAAQBAJ
• Schroter S ,
• Merino JG ,
• Barbeau A ,
• ↵ Padgett DK. Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Public Health . SAGE Publications 2011. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=LcYgAQAAQBAJ
• Scharp KM ,
• Korstjens I
• Barnett-Page E ,
• ↵ Guest G, Namey EE, Mitchell ML. Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual for Applied Research . SAGE 2013. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=-3rmWYKtloC
• Sainsbury P ,
• Emerson RM ,
• Saunders B ,
• Kingstone T ,
• Hennink MM ,
• Kaiser BN ,
• Hennink M ,
• O’Connor C ,
• ↵ Yen RW, Schubbe D, Walling L, et al. Patient engagement in the What Matters Most trial: experiences and future implications for research. Poster presented at International Shared Decision Making conference, Quebec City, Canada. July 2019.
• ↵ Got questions about Thematic Analysis? We have prepared some answers to common ones. https://www.thematicanalysis.net/faqs/ (accessed 9 Nov 2022).
• ↵ Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic Analysis. SAGE Publications. 2022. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/thematic-analysis/book248481 .
• Kalpokas N ,
• Radivojevic I
• Campbell KA ,
• Durepos P ,
• ↵ Understanding Thematic Analysis. https://www.thematicanalysis.net/understanding-ta/ .
• Saunders CH ,
• Stevens G ,
• CONFIDENT Study Long-Term Care Partners
• MacQueen K ,
• Vaismoradi M ,
• Turunen H ,
• Schott SL ,
• Berkowitz J ,
• Carpenter-Song EA ,
• Goldwag JL ,
• Durand MA ,
• Goldwag J ,
• Saunders C ,
• Mishra MK ,
• Rodriguez HP ,
• Shortell SM ,
• Verdinelli S ,
• Scagnoli NI
• Campbell C ,
• Sparkes AC ,
• McGannon KR
• Sandelowski M ,
• Connelly LM ,
• O’Malley AJ ,

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground

Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

• Free Account
• For Digital
• For Customer Care
• For Human Resources
• For Researchers
• Financial Services
• All Industries

Popular Use Cases

• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Employee Exit Interviews
• Net Promoter Score
• Voice of Customer
• Customer Success Hub
• Product Documentation
• Training & Certification
• XM Institute
• Popular Resources
• Customer Stories

Market Research

• Artificial Intelligence
• Partnerships
• Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.

• English/AU & NZ
• Español/Europa
• Español/América Latina
• Português Brasileiro
• REQUEST DEMO
• Experience Management
• Qualitative Research Questions

Try Qualtrics for free

How to write qualitative research questions.

11 min read Here’s how to write effective qualitative research questions for your projects, and why getting it right matters so much.

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is a blanket term covering a wide range of research methods and theoretical framing approaches. The unifying factor in all these types of qualitative study is that they deal with data that cannot be counted. Typically this means things like people’s stories, feelings, opinions and emotions , and the meanings they ascribe to their experiences.

Qualitative study is one of two main categories of research, the other being quantitative research. Quantitative research deals with numerical data – that which can be counted and quantified, and which is mostly concerned with trends and patterns in large-scale datasets.

What are research questions?

Research questions are questions you are trying to answer with your research. To put it another way, your research question is the reason for your study, and the beginning point for your research design. There is normally only one research question per study, although if your project is very complex, you may have multiple research questions that are closely linked to one central question.

A good qualitative research question sums up your research objective. It’s a way of expressing the central question of your research, identifying your particular topic and the central issue you are examining.

Research questions are quite different from survey questions, questions used in focus groups or interview questions. A long list of questions is used in these types of study, as opposed to one central question. Additionally, interview or survey questions are asked of participants, whereas research questions are only for the researcher to maintain a clear understanding of the research design.

Research questions are used in both qualitative and quantitative research , although what makes a good research question might vary between the two.

In fact, the type of research questions you are asking can help you decide whether you need to take a quantitative or qualitative approach to your research project.

Discover the fundamentals of qualitative research

Quantitative vs. qualitative research questions

Writing research questions is very important in both qualitative and quantitative research, but the research questions that perform best in the two types of studies are quite different.

Quantitative research questions

Quantitative research questions usually relate to quantities, similarities and differences.

It might reflect the researchers’ interest in determining whether relationships between variables exist, and if so whether they are statistically significant. Or it may focus on establishing differences between things through comparison, and using statistical analysis to determine whether those differences are meaningful or due to chance.

• How much? This kind of research question is one of the simplest. It focuses on quantifying something. For example:

How many Yoruba speakers are there in the state of Maine?

• What is the connection?

This type of quantitative research question examines how one variable affects another.

For example:

How does a low level of sunlight affect the mood scores (1-10) of Antarctic explorers during winter?

• What is the difference? Quantitative research questions in this category identify two categories and measure the difference between them using numerical data.

Do white cats stay cooler than tabby cats in hot weather?

If your research question fits into one of the above categories, you’re probably going to be doing a quantitative study.

Qualitative research questions

Qualitative research questions focus on exploring phenomena, meanings and experiences.

Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research isn’t about finding causal relationships between variables. So although qualitative research questions might touch on topics that involve one variable influencing another, or looking at the difference between things, finding and quantifying those relationships isn’t the primary objective.

In fact, you as a qualitative researcher might end up studying a very similar topic to your colleague who is doing a quantitative study, but your areas of focus will be quite different. Your research methods will also be different – they might include focus groups, ethnography studies, and other kinds of qualitative study.

A few example qualitative research questions:

• What is it like being an Antarctic explorer during winter?
• What are the experiences of Yoruba speakers in the USA?
• How do white cat owners describe their pets?

Qualitative research question types

Marshall and Rossman (1989) identified 4 qualitative research question types, each with its own typical research strategy and methods.

• Exploratory questions

Exploratory questions are used when relatively little is known about the research topic. The process researchers follow when pursuing exploratory questions might involve interviewing participants, holding focus groups, or diving deep with a case study.

• Explanatory questions

With explanatory questions, the research topic is approached with a view to understanding the causes that lie behind phenomena. However, unlike a quantitative project, the focus of explanatory questions is on qualitative analysis of multiple interconnected factors that have influenced a particular group or area, rather than a provable causal link between dependent and independent variables.

• Descriptive questions

As the name suggests, descriptive questions aim to document and record what is happening. In answering descriptive questions , researchers might interact directly with participants with surveys or interviews, as well as using observational studies and ethnography studies that collect data on how participants interact with their wider environment.

• Predictive questions

Predictive questions start from the phenomena of interest and investigate what ramifications it might have in the future. Answering predictive questions may involve looking back as well as forward, with content analysis, questionnaires and studies of non-verbal communication (kinesics).

Why are good qualitative research questions important?

We know research questions are very important. But what makes them so essential? (And is that question a qualitative or quantitative one?)

Getting your qualitative research questions right has a number of benefits.

• It defines your qualitative research project Qualitative research questions definitively nail down the research population, the thing you’re examining, and what the nature of your answer will be.This means you can explain your research project to other people both inside and outside your business or organization. That could be critical when it comes to securing funding for your project, recruiting participants and members of your research team, and ultimately for publishing your results. It can also help you assess right the ethical considerations for your population of study.
• It maintains focus Good qualitative research questions help researchers to stick to the area of focus as they carry out their research. Keeping the research question in mind will help them steer away from tangents during their research or while they are carrying out qualitative research interviews. This holds true whatever the qualitative methods are, whether it’s a focus group, survey, thematic analysis or other type of inquiry.That doesn’t mean the research project can’t morph and change during its execution – sometimes this is acceptable and even welcome – but having a research question helps demarcate the starting point for the research. It can be referred back to if the scope and focus of the project does change.
• It helps make sure your outcomes are achievable

Because qualitative research questions help determine the kind of results you’re going to get, it helps make sure those results are achievable. By formulating good qualitative research questions in advance, you can make sure the things you want to know and the way you’re going to investigate them are grounded in practical reality. Otherwise, you may be at risk of taking on a research project that can’t be satisfactorily completed.

Developing good qualitative research questions

All researchers use research questions to define their parameters, keep their study on track and maintain focus on the research topic. This is especially important with qualitative questions, where there may be exploratory or inductive methods in use that introduce researchers to new and interesting areas of inquiry. Here are some tips for writing good qualitative research questions.

1. Keep it specific

Broader research questions are difficult to act on. They may also be open to interpretation, or leave some parameters undefined.

Strong example: How do Baby Boomers in the USA feel about their gender identity?

Weak example: Do people feel different about gender now?

2. Be original

Look for research questions that haven’t been widely addressed by others already.

Strong example: What are the effects of video calling on women’s experiences of work?

Weak example: Are women given less respect than men at work?

3. Make it research-worthy

Don’t ask a question that can be answered with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’, or with a quick Google search.

Strong example: What do people like and dislike about living in a highly multi-lingual country?

Weak example: What languages are spoken in India?

4. Focus your question

Don’t roll multiple topics or questions into one. Qualitative data may involve multiple topics, but your qualitative questions should be focused.

Strong example: What is the experience of disabled children and their families when using social services?

Weak example: How can we improve social services for children affected by poverty and disability?

4. Focus on your own discipline, not someone else’s

Avoid asking questions that are for the politicians, police or others to address.

Strong example: What does it feel like to be the victim of a hate crime?

Weak example: How can hate crimes be prevented?

5. Ask something researchable

Big questions, questions about hypothetical events or questions that would require vastly more resources than you have access to are not useful starting points for qualitative studies. Qualitative words or subjective ideas that lack definition are also not helpful.

Strong example: How do perceptions of physical beauty vary between today’s youth and their parents’ generation?

Weak example: Which country has the most beautiful people in it?

Related resources

Qualitative research design 12 min read, primary vs secondary research 14 min read, business research methods 12 min read, qualitative research interviews 11 min read, market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read, ethnographic research 11 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Topic collections
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 13, Issue 2
• Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Sarah Peters
• Correspondence to : Dr Sarah Peters, School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Coupland Building 1, Oxford Road M13 9PL, UK; sarah.peters{at}manchester.ac.uk

As the evidence base for the study of mental health problems develops, there is a need for increasingly rigorous and systematic research methodologies. Complex questions require complex methodological approaches. Recognising this, the MRC guidelines for developing and testing complex interventions place qualitative methods as integral to each stage of intervention development and implementation. However, mental health research has lagged behind many other healthcare specialities in using qualitative methods within its evidence base. Rigour in qualitative research raises many similar issues to quantitative research and also some additional challenges. This article examines the role of qualitative methods within mental heath research, describes key methodological and analytical approaches and offers guidance on how to differentiate between poor and good quality qualitative research.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmh.13.2.35

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The trajectory of qualitative methods in mental health research

Qualitative methodologies have a clear home within the study of mental health research. Early and, arguably, seminal work into the study of mental illnesses and their management was based on detailed observation, moving towards theory using inductive reasoning. Case studies have been long established in psychiatry to present detailed analysis of unusual cases or novel treatments. Participant observation was the principle method used in Goffman's seminal study of psychiatric patients in asylums that informed his ideas about the institutionalising and medicalising of mental illness by medical practice. 1 However, the 20th century saw the ‘behaviourist revolution’, a movement where quantification and experimentation dominated. Researchers sought to identify cause and effects, and reasoning became more deductive – seeking to use data to confirm theory. The study of health and illness was determined by contemporary thinking about disease, taking a biomedical stance. Psychologists and clinical health researchers exploited natural science methodologies, attempting to measure phenomenon in their smallest entities and do so as objectively as possible. This reductionist and positivist philosophy shaped advances in research methods and meant that qualitative exploration failed to develop as a credible scientific approach. Indeed, ‘objectivity’ and the ‘discovery of truth’ have become synonymous with ‘scientific enquiry’ and qualitative methods are easily dismissed as ‘anecdotal’. The underlying epistemology of this approach chimes well with medical practice for which training is predominately in laboratory and basic sciences (such as physics and chemistry) within which the discourse of natural laws dominate. To this end, research in psychiatry still remains overwhelmingly quantitative. 2

Underlying all research paradigms are assumptions. However, most traditional researchers remain unaware of these until they start to use alternative paradigms. Key assumptions of quantitative research are that facts exist that can be quantified and measured and that these should be examined, as far as possible, objectively, partialling out or controlling for the context within which they exist. There are research questions within mental health where this approach can hold: where phenomenon of interest can be reliably and meaningfully quantified and measured, it is feasible to use data to test predictions and examine change. However, for many questions these assumptions prove unsatisfying. It is often not possible or desirable to try and create laboratory conditions for the research; indeed it would be ecologically invalid to do so. For example, to understand the experience of an individual who has been newly diagnosed with schizophrenia, it is clearly important to consider the context within which they live, their family, social grouping and media messages they are exposed to. Table 1 depicts the key differences between the two methodological approaches and core underlying assumptions for each.

• View inline

Comparison of underlying assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research approaches

It should be cautioned that it is easy to fall into the trap of categorising studies as either quantitative or qualitative. The two traditions are often positioned within the literature as opposing and in conflict. This division is unhelpful and likely to impede methodological advancement. Though, undeniably, there are differences in the two approaches to research, there are also many exceptions that expose this dichotomy to be simplistic: some qualitative studies seek to test a priori hypotheses, and some quantitative studies are atheoretical and exploratory. 3 Hence it is more useful to consider research methodologies as lying along a spectrum and that researchers should be familiar with the full range of methodologies, so that a method is chosen according to the research question rather than the researcher's ability.

Rationale for qualitative methods in current mental health research

There are a number of scientific, practical and ethical reasons why mental health is an area that can particularly benefit from qualitative enquiry. Mental health research is complex. Health problems are multifactorial in their aetiology and the consequences they have on the individual, families and societies. Management can involve self-help, pharmacological, educative, social and psychotherapeutic approaches. Services involved are often multidisciplinary and require liaison between a number of individuals including professionals, service-users and relatives. Many problems are exacerbated by poor treatment compliance and lack of access to, or engagement with, appropriate services. 4

Engagement with mental health research can also be challenging. Topics may be highly sensitive or private. Individuals may have impaired capacity or be at high risk. During the research process there may be revelations of suicidal ideation or criminal activity. Hence mental health research can raise additional ethical issues. In other cases scepticism of services makes for reluctant research participants. However, if we accept the case that meaningful research can be based in subjective enquiry then qualitative methods provide a way of giving voice to participants. Qualitative methods offer an effective way of involving service-users in developing interventions for mental health problems 5 ensuring that the questions asked are meaningful to individuals. This may be particularly beneficial if participants are stakeholders, for example potential users of a new service.

Qualitative methods are valuable for individuals who have limited literacy skills who struggle with pencil and paper measures. For example qualitative research has proved fruitful in understanding children's concepts of mental illness and associated services. 6

How qualitative enquiry is used within mental health research

There are a range of types of research question where qualitative methods prove useful – from the development and testing of theory, to the piloting and establishing efficacy of treatment approaches, to understanding issues around translation and implementation into routine practice. Each is discussed in turn.

Development and testing of theory

Qualitative methods are important in exploratory work and in generating understanding of a phenomenon, stimulating new ideas or building new theory. For example, stigma is a concept that is recognised as a barrier to accessing services and also an added burden to mental health. A focus-group study sought to understand the meaning of stigma from the perspectives of individuals with schizophrenia, their relatives and health professionals. 7 From this they developed a four-dimensional theory which has subsequently informed interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination that target not only engagement with psychiatric services but also interactions with the public and work. 7

Development of tools and measures

Qualitative methods access personal accounts, capturing how individuals talk about a lived experience. This can be invaluable for designing new research tools. For example, Mavaddat and colleagues used focus groups with 56 patients with severe or common mental health problems to explore their experiences of primary care management. 8 Nine focus groups were conducted and analysis identified key themes. From these, items were generated to form a Patient Experience Questionnaire, of which the psychometric properties were subsequently examined quantitatively in a larger sample. Not only can dimensions be identified, the rich qualitative data provide terminology that is meaningful to service users that can then be incorporated into question items.

Development and testing of interventions

As we have seen, qualitative methods can inform the development of new interventions. The gold-standard methodology for investigating treatment effectiveness is the randomised controlled trial (RCT), with the principle output being an effect size or demonstration that the primary outcome was significantly improved for participants in the intervention arm compared with those in the control/comparison arm. Nevertheless, what will be familiar for researchers and clinicians involved in trials is that immense research and clinical learning arises from these substantial, often lengthy and expensive research endeavours. Qualitative methods provide a means to empirically capture these lessons, whether they are about recruitment, therapy training/supervision, treatment delivery or content. These data are essential to improve the feasibility and acceptability of further trials and developing the intervention. Conducting qualitative work prior to embarking on an RCT can inform the design, delivery and recruitment, as well as engage relevant stakeholders early in the process; all of these can prevent costly errors. Qualitative research can also be used during a trial to identify reasons for poor recruitment: in one RCT, implementing findings from this type of investigation led to an increased randomisation rate from 40% to 70%. 9

Nesting qualitative research within a trial can be viewed as taking out an insurance policy as data are generated which can later help explain negative or surprising findings. A recent trial of reattribution training for GPs to manage medically unexplained symptoms demonstrated substantial improvements in GP consultation behaviour. 10 However, effects on clinical outcomes were counterintuitive. A series of nested qualitative studies helped shed light as to why this was the case: patients' illness models were complex, and they resisted engaging with GPs (who they perceived as having more simplistic and dualistic understanding) because they were anxious it would lead to non-identification or misdiagnosis of any potential future disease 11 , an issue that can be addressed in future interventions. Even if the insights are unsurprising to those involved in the research, the data collected have been generated systematically and can be subjected to peer review and disseminated. For this reason, there is an increasing expectation from funding bodies that qualitative methodologies are integral to psychosocial intervention research.

Translation and implementation into clinical practice

Trials provide limited information about how treatments can be implemented into clinical practice or applied to another context. Psychological interventions are more effective when delivered within trial settings by experts involved in their development than when they are delivered within clinical settings. 12 Qualitative methods can help us understand how to implement research findings into routine practice. 13

Understanding what stakeholders value about a service and what barriers exist to its uptake is another evidence base to inform clinicians' practice. Relapse prevention is an effective psychoeducation approach that helps individuals with bipolar disorder extend time to relapse. Qualitative methodologies identified which aspects of the intervention service-users and care-coordinators value, and hence, are likely to utilise in routine care. 14 The intervention facilitated better understanding of bipolar disorder (by both parties), demonstrating, in turn, a rationale for medication. Patients discovered new, empowering and less socially isolated ways of managing their symptoms, which had important impacts on interactions with healthcare staff and family members. Furthermore, care-coordinators' reported how they used elements of the intervention when working with clients with other diagnoses. The research also provided insights as to where difficulties may occur when implementing a particular intervention into routine care. For example, for care-coordinators this proved a novel way of working with clients that was more emotionally demanding, thus highlighting the need for supervision and managerial support. 14

Beginners guide to qualitative approaches: one size doesn't fit all

Just as there is a range of quantitative research designs and statistical analyses to choose from, so there are many types of qualitative methods. Choosing a method can be daunting to an inexperienced or beginner-level qualitative researcher, for it requires engaging with new terms and ways of thinking about knowledge. The following summary sets out analytic and data-generation approaches that are used commonly in mental health research. It is not intended to be comprehensive and is provided only as a point of access/familiarisation to researchers less familiar with the literature.

Data generation

Qualitative data are generated in several ways. Most commonly, researchers seek a sample and conduct a series of individual in-depth interviews, seeking participants' views on topics of interest. Typically these last upwards of 45 min and are organised on the basis of a schedule of topics identified from the literature or pilot work. This does not act as a questionnaire, however; rather, it acts as a flexible framework for exploring areas of interest. The researcher combines open questions to elicit free responses, with focused questions for probing and prompting participants to provide effective responses. Usually interviews are audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for subsequent analysis.

As interviews are held in privately, and on one-to-one basis, they provide scope to develop a trusting relationship so that participants are comfortable disclosing socially undesirable views. For example, in a study of practice nurses views of chronic fatigue syndrome, some nurses described patients as lazy or illegitimate – a view that challenges the stereotype of a nursing professional as a sympathetic and caring person. 15 This gives important information about the education and supervision required to enable or train general nurses to ensure that they are capable of delivering psychological interventions for these types of problems.

Alternatively, groups of participants are brought together for a focus group, which usually lasts for 2 hours. Although it is tempting to consider focus groups as an efficient way of acquiring data from several participants simultaneously, there are disadvantages. They are difficult to organise for geographically dispersed or busy participants, and there are compromises to confidentiality, particularly within ‘captive’ populations (eg, within an organisation individuals may be unwilling to criticise). Group dynamics must be considered; the presence of a dominant or self-professed expert can inhibit the group and, therefore, prevent useful data generation. When the subject mater is sensitive, individuals may be unwilling to discuss experiences in a group, although it often promotes a shared experience that can be empowering. Most of these problems are avoided by careful planning of the group composition and ensuring the group is conducted by a highly skilled facilitator. Lester and colleagues 16 used focus-group sessions with patients and health professionals to understand the experience of dealing with serious mental illness. Though initially participants were observed via focus-group sessions that used patient-only and health professional only groups, subsequently on combined focus groups were used that contained both patients and health professionals. 16 The primary advantage of focus groups is that they enable generation of data about how individuals discuss and interact about a phenomenon; thus, a well-conducted focus group can be an extremely rich source of data.

A different type of data are naturally occurring dialogue and behaviours. These may be recorded through observation and detailed field notes (see ethnography in Table 2 ) or analysed from audio/ video-recordings. Other data sources include texts, for example, diaries, clinical notes, Internet blogs and so on. Qualitative data can even be generated through postal surveys. We thematically analysed responses to an open-ended question set within a survey about medical educators' views of behavioural and social sciences (BSS). 17 From this, key barriers to integrating BSS within medical training were identified, which included an entrenched biomedical mindset. The themes were analysed in relation to existing literature and revealed that despite radical changes in medical training, the power of the hidden curriculum persists. 17

Key features of a range of analytical approaches used within mental health research

Analysing qualitative data

Researchers bring a wide range of analytical approaches to the data. A comprehensive and detailed discussion of the philosophy underlying different methods is beyond the scope of this paper; however, a summary of the key analytical approaches used in mental health research are provided in Table 2 . An illustrative example is provided for each approach to offer some insight into the commonalities and differences between methodologies. The procedure for analysis for all methods involves successive stages of data familiarisation/immersion, followed by seeking and reviewing patterns within the data, which may then be defined and categorized as specific themes. Researchers move back and forth between data generation and analysis, confirming or disconfirming emerging ideas. The relationship of the analysis to theory-testing or theory-building depends on the methodology used.

Some approaches are more common in healthcare than others. Interpretative phenomenological (lPA) analysis and thematic analysis have proved particularly popular. In contrast, ethnographic research requires a high level of researcher investment and reflexivity and can prove challenging for NHS ethic committees. Consequently, it remains under used in healthcare research.

Recruitment and sampling

Quantitative research is interested in identifying the typical, or average. By contrast, qualitative research aims to discover and examine the breadth of views held within a community. This includes extreme or deviant views and views that are absent. Consequently, qualitative researchers do not necessarily (though in some circumstances they may) seek to identify a representative sample. Instead, the aim may be to sample across the range of views. Hence, qualitative research can comment on what views exist and what this means, but it is not possible to infer the proportions of people from the wider population that hold a particular view.

However, sampling for a qualitative study is not any less systematic or considered. In a quantitative study one would take a statistical approach to sampling, for example, selecting a random sample or recruiting consecutive referrals, or every 10th out-patient attendee. Qualitative studies, instead, often elect to use theoretical means to identify a sample. This is often purposive; that is, the researcher uses theoretical principles to choose the attributes of included participants. Healey and colleagues conducted a study to understand the reasons for individuals with bipolar disorder misusing substances. 18 They sought to include participants who were current users of each substance group, and the recruitment strategy evolved to actively target specific cases.

Qualitative studies typically use far smaller samples than quantitative studies. The number varies depending on the richness of the data yielded and the type of analytic approach that can range from a single case to more than 100 participants. As with all research, it is unethical to recruit more participants than needed to address the question at hand; a qualitative sample should be sufficient for thematic saturation to be achieved from the data.

Ensuring that findings are valid and generalisable

A common question from individuals new to qualitative research is how can findings from a study of few participants be generalised to the wider population? In some circumstances, findings from an individual study (quantitative or qualitative) may have limited generalisability; therefore, more studies may need to be conducted, in order to build local knowledge that can then be tested or explored across similar groups. 4 However, all qualitative studies should create new insights that have theoretical or clinical relevance which enables the study to extend understanding beyond the individual participants and to the wider population. In some cases, this can lead to generation of new theory (see grounded theory in Table 2 ).

Reliability and validity are two important ways of ascertaining rigor in quantitative research. Qualitative research seeks to understand individual construction and, by definition, is subjective. It is unlikely, therefore, that a study could ever be repeated with exactly the same circumstances. Instead, qualitative research is concerned with the question of whether the findings are trustworthy; that is, if the same circumstances were to prevail, would the same conclusions would be drawn?

There are a number of ways to maximise trustworthiness. One is triangulation, of which there are three subtypes. Data triangulation involves using data from several sources (eg, interviews, documentation, observation). A research team may include members from different backgrounds (eg, psychology, psychiatry, sociology), enabling a range of perspectives to be used within the discussion and interpretation of the data. This is termed researcher triangulation . The final subtype, theoretical triangulation, requires using more than one theory to examine the research question. Another technique to establish the trustworthiness of the findings is to use respondent validation. Here, the final or interim analysis is presented to members of the population of interest to ascertain whether interpretations made are valid.

An important aspect of all qualitative studies is researcher reflexivity. Here researchers consider their role and how their experience and knowledge might influence the generation, analysis and interpretation of the data. As with all well-conducted research, a clear record of progress should be kept – to enable scrutiny of recruitment, data generation and development of analysis. However, transparency is particularly important in qualitative research as the concepts and views evolve and are refined during the process.

Judging quality in qualitative research

Within all fields of research there are better and worse ways of conducting a study, and range of quality in mental health qualitative research is variable. Many of the principles for judging quality in qualitative research are the same for judging quality in any other type of research. However, several guidelines have been developed to help readers, reviewers and editors who lack methodological expertise to feel more confident in appraising qualitative studies. Guidelines are a prerequisite for the relatively recent advance of methodologies for systematic reviewing of qualitative literature (see meta-synthesis in Table 2 ). Box 1 provides some key questions that should be considered while studying a qualitative report.

Box 1 Guidelines for authors and reviewers of qualitative research (adapted from Malterud 35 )

▶ Is the research question relevant and clearly stated?

Reflexivity

▶ Are the researcher's motives and background presented?

Method, sampling and data collection

▶ Is a qualitative method appropriate and justified?

▶ Is the sampling strategy clearly described and justified?

▶ Is the method for data generation fully described

▶ Are the characteristics of the sample sufficiently described?

Theoretical framework

▶ Was a theoretical framework used and stated?

▶ Are the principles and procedures for data organisation and analysis described and justified?

▶ Are strategies used to test the trustworthiness of the findings?

▶ Are the findings relevant to the aim of the study?

▶ Are data (e.g. quotes) used to support and enrich the findings?

▶ Are the conclusions directly linked to the study? Are you convinced?

▶ Do the findings have clinical or theoretical value?

▶ Are findings compared to appropriate theoretical and empirical literature?

▶ Are questions about the internal and external validity and reflexivity discussed?

▶ Are shortcomings of the design, and the implications these have on findings, examined?

▶ Are clinical/theoretical implications of the findings made?

Presentation

▶ Is the report understandable and clearly contextualised?

▶ Is it possible to distinguish between the voices of informants and researchers?

▶ Are sources from the field used and appropriately referenced?

Conclusions and future directions

Qualitative research has enormous potential within the field of mental health research, yet researchers are only beginning to exploit the range of methods they use at each stage of enquiry. Strengths of qualitative research primarily lie in developing theory and increasing understanding about effective implementation of treatments and how best to support clinicians and service users in managing mental health problems. An important development in the field is how to integrate methodological approaches to address questions. This raises a number of challenges, such as how to integrate textual and numerical data and how to reconcile different epistemologies. A distinction can be made between mixed- method design (eg, quantitative and qualitative data are gathered and findings combined within a single or series of studies) and mixed- model study, a pragmatist approach, whereby aspects of qualitative and quantitative research are combined at different stages during a research process. 19 Qualitative research is still often viewed as only a support function or as secondary to quantitative research; however, this situation is likely to evolve as more researchers gain a broader skill set.

Though it is undeniable that there has been a marked increase in the volume and quality of qualitative research published within the past two decades, mental health research has been surprisingly slow to develop, compared to other disciplines e.g. general practice and nursing, with relatively fewer qualitative research findings reaching mainstream psychiatric journals. 2 This does not appear to reflect overall editorial policy; however, it may be partly due to the lack of confidence on the part of editors and reviewers while identifying rigorous qualitative research data for further publication. 20 However, the skilled researcher should no longer find him or herself forced into a position of defending a single-methodology camp (quantitative vs qualitative), but should be equipped with the necessary methodological and analytical skills to study and interpret data and to appraise and interpret others' findings from a full range of methodological techniques.

• Crawford MJ ,
• Cordingley L
• Dowrick C ,
• Edwards S ,
• ↵ MRC Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions 2008
• Nelson ML ,
• Quintana SM
• Schulze B ,
• Angermeyer MC
• Mavaddat N ,
• Lester HE ,
• Donovan J ,
• Morriss R ,
• Barkham M ,
• Stiles WB ,
• Connell J ,
• Chew-Graham C ,
• England E ,
• Kinderman P ,
• Tashakkoria A ,
• Ritchie J ,
• Ssebunnya J ,
• Chilvers R ,
• Glasman D ,
• Finlay WM ,
• Strauss A ,
• Hodges BD ,
• Dobransky K
• Dixon-Woods M ,
• Fitzpatrick R ,
• Espíndola CR ,

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• 10 Research Question Examples to Guide Your Research Project

10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project

Published on October 30, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on October 19, 2023.

The research question is one of the most important parts of your research paper , thesis or dissertation . It’s important to spend some time assessing and refining your question before you get started.

The exact form of your question will depend on a few things, such as the length of your project, the type of research you’re conducting, the topic , and the research problem . However, all research questions should be focused, specific, and relevant to a timely social or scholarly issue.

Once you’ve read our guide on how to write a research question , you can use these examples to craft your own.

Note that the design of your research question can depend on what method you are pursuing. Here are a few options for qualitative, quantitative, and statistical research questions.

Other interesting articles

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, October 19). 10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project. Scribbr. Retrieved March 20, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-question-examples/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, evaluating sources | methods & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » 500+ Qualitative Research Titles and Topics

500+ Qualitative Research Titles and Topics

Table of Contents

Qualitative research is a methodological approach that involves gathering and analyzing non-numerical data to understand and interpret social phenomena. Unlike quantitative research , which emphasizes the collection of numerical data through surveys and experiments, qualitative research is concerned with exploring the subjective experiences, perspectives, and meanings of individuals and groups. As such, qualitative research topics can be diverse and encompass a wide range of social issues and phenomena. From exploring the impact of culture on identity formation to examining the experiences of marginalized communities, qualitative research offers a rich and nuanced perspective on complex social issues. In this post, we will explore some of the most compelling qualitative research topics and provide some tips on how to conduct effective qualitative research.

Qualitative Research Titles

Qualitative research titles often reflect the study’s focus on understanding the depth and complexity of human behavior, experiences, or social phenomena. Here are some examples across various fields:

• “Understanding the Impact of Project-Based Learning on Student Engagement in High School Classrooms: A Qualitative Study”
• “Navigating the Transition: Experiences of International Students in American Universities”
• “The Role of Parental Involvement in Early Childhood Education: Perspectives from Teachers and Parents”
• “Exploring the Effects of Teacher Feedback on Student Motivation and Self-Efficacy in Middle Schools”
• “Digital Literacy in the Classroom: Teacher Strategies for Integrating Technology in Elementary Education”
• “Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices: A Case Study in Diverse Urban Schools”
• “The Influence of Extracurricular Activities on Academic Achievement: Student Perspectives”
• “Barriers to Implementing Inclusive Education in Public Schools: A Qualitative Inquiry”
• “Teacher Professional Development and Its Impact on Classroom Practice: A Qualitative Exploration”
• “Student-Centered Learning Environments: A Qualitative Study of Classroom Dynamics and Outcomes”
• “The Experience of First-Year Teachers: Challenges, Support Systems, and Professional Growth”
• “Exploring the Role of School Leadership in Fostering a Positive School Culture”
• “Peer Relationships and Learning Outcomes in Cooperative Learning Settings: A Qualitative Analysis”
• “The Impact of Social Media on Student Learning and Engagement: Teacher and Student Perspectives”
• “Understanding Special Education Needs: Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Support Services in Schools

Health Science

• “Living with Chronic Pain: Patient Narratives and Coping Strategies in Managing Daily Life”
• “Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on the Challenges of Rural Healthcare Delivery”
• “Exploring the Mental Health Impacts of COVID-19 on Frontline Healthcare Workers: A Qualitative Study”
• “Patient and Family Experiences of Palliative Care: Understanding Needs and Preferences”
• “The Role of Community Health Workers in Improving Access to Maternal Healthcare in Rural Areas”
• “Barriers to Mental Health Services Among Ethnic Minorities: A Qualitative Exploration”
• “Understanding Patient Satisfaction in Telemedicine Services: A Qualitative Study of User Experiences”
• “The Impact of Cultural Competence Training on Healthcare Provider-Patient Communication”
• “Navigating the Transition to Adult Healthcare Services: Experiences of Adolescents with Chronic Conditions”
• “Exploring the Use of Alternative Medicine Among Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Qualitative Inquiry”
• “The Role of Social Support in the Rehabilitation Process of Stroke Survivors”
• “Healthcare Decision-Making Among Elderly Patients: A Qualitative Study of Preferences and Influences”
• “Nurse Perceptions of Patient Safety Culture in Hospital Settings: A Qualitative Analysis”
• “Experiences of Women with Postpartum Depression: Barriers to Seeking Help”
• “The Impact of Nutrition Education on Eating Behaviors Among College Students: A Qualitative Approach”
• “Understanding Resilience in Survivors of Childhood Trauma: A Narrative Inquiry”
• “The Role of Mindfulness in Managing Work-Related Stress Among Corporate Employees: A Qualitative Study”
• “Coping Mechanisms Among Parents of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder”
• “Exploring the Psychological Impact of Social Isolation in the Elderly: A Phenomenological Study”
• “Identity Formation in Adolescence: The Influence of Social Media and Peer Groups”
• “The Experience of Forgiveness in Interpersonal Relationships: A Qualitative Exploration”
• “Perceptions of Happiness and Well-Being Among University Students: A Cultural Perspective”
• “The Impact of Art Therapy on Anxiety and Depression in Adult Cancer Patients”
• “Narratives of Recovery: A Qualitative Study on the Journey Through Addiction Rehabilitation”
• “Exploring the Psychological Effects of Long-Term Unemployment: A Grounded Theory Approach”
• “Attachment Styles and Their Influence on Adult Romantic Relationships: A Qualitative Analysis”
• “The Role of Personal Values in Career Decision-Making Among Young Adults”
• “Understanding the Stigma of Mental Illness in Rural Communities: A Qualitative Inquiry”
• “Exploring the Use of Digital Mental Health Interventions Among Adolescents: A Qualitative Study”
• “The Psychological Impact of Climate Change on Young Adults: An Exploration of Anxiety and Action”
• “Navigating Identity: The Role of Social Media in Shaping Youth Culture and Self-Perception”
• “Community Resilience in the Face of Urban Gentrification: A Case Study of Neighborhood Change”
• “The Dynamics of Intergenerational Relationships in Immigrant Families: A Qualitative Analysis”
• “Social Capital and Economic Mobility in Low-Income Neighborhoods: An Ethnographic Approach”
• “Gender Roles and Career Aspirations Among Young Adults in Conservative Societies”
• “The Stigma of Mental Health in the Workplace: Employee Narratives and Organizational Culture”
• “Exploring the Intersection of Race, Class, and Education in Urban School Systems”
• “The Impact of Digital Divide on Access to Healthcare Information in Rural Communities”
• “Social Movements and Political Engagement Among Millennials: A Qualitative Study”
• “Cultural Adaptation and Identity Among Second-Generation Immigrants: A Phenomenological Inquiry”
• “The Role of Religious Institutions in Providing Community Support and Social Services”
• “Negotiating Public Space: Experiences of LGBTQ+ Individuals in Urban Environments”
• “The Sociology of Food: Exploring Eating Habits and Food Practices Across Cultures”
• “Work-Life Balance Challenges Among Dual-Career Couples: A Qualitative Exploration”
• “The Influence of Peer Networks on Substance Use Among Adolescents: A Community Study”

Business and Management

• “Navigating Organizational Change: Employee Perceptions and Adaptation Strategies in Mergers and Acquisitions”
• “Corporate Social Responsibility: Consumer Perceptions and Brand Loyalty in the Retail Sector”
• “Leadership Styles and Organizational Culture: A Comparative Study of Tech Startups”
• “Workplace Diversity and Inclusion: Best Practices and Challenges in Multinational Corporations”
• “Consumer Trust in E-commerce: A Qualitative Study of Online Shopping Behaviors”
• “The Gig Economy and Worker Satisfaction: Exploring the Experiences of Freelance Professionals”
• “Entrepreneurial Resilience: Success Stories and Lessons Learned from Failed Startups”
• “Employee Engagement and Productivity in Remote Work Settings: A Post-Pandemic Analysis”
• “Brand Storytelling: How Narrative Strategies Influence Consumer Engagement”
• “Sustainable Business Practices: Stakeholder Perspectives in the Fashion Industry”
• “Cross-Cultural Communication Challenges in Global Teams: Strategies for Effective Collaboration”
• “Innovative Workspaces: The Impact of Office Design on Creativity and Collaboration”
• “Consumer Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Customer Service: A Qualitative Exploration”
• “The Role of Mentoring in Career Development: Insights from Women in Leadership Positions”
• “Agile Management Practices: Adoption and Impact in Traditional Industries”

Environmental Studies

• “Community-Based Conservation Efforts in Tropical Rainforests: A Qualitative Study of Local Perspectives and Practices”
• “Urban Sustainability Initiatives: Exploring Resident Participation and Impact in Green City Projects”
• “Perceptions of Climate Change Among Indigenous Populations: Insights from Traditional Ecological Knowledge”
• “Environmental Justice and Industrial Pollution: A Case Study of Community Advocacy and Response”
• “The Role of Eco-Tourism in Promoting Conservation Awareness: Perspectives from Tour Operators and Visitors”
• “Sustainable Agriculture Practices Among Smallholder Farmers: Challenges and Opportunities”
• “Youth Engagement in Climate Action Movements: Motivations, Perceptions, and Outcomes”
• “Corporate Environmental Responsibility: A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Expectations and Company Practices”
• “The Impact of Plastic Pollution on Marine Ecosystems: Community Awareness and Behavioral Change”
• “Renewable Energy Adoption in Rural Communities: Barriers, Facilitators, and Social Implications”
• “Water Scarcity and Community Adaptation Strategies in Arid Regions: A Grounded Theory Approach”
• “Urban Green Spaces: Public Perceptions and Use Patterns in Megacities”
• “Environmental Education in Schools: Teachers’ Perspectives on Integrating Sustainability into Curricula”
• “The Influence of Environmental Activism on Policy Change: Case Studies of Grassroots Campaigns”
• “Cultural Practices and Natural Resource Management: A Qualitative Study of Indigenous Stewardship Models”

Anthropology

• “Kinship and Social Organization in Matrilineal Societies: An Ethnographic Study”
• “Rituals and Beliefs Surrounding Death and Mourning in Diverse Cultures: A Comparative Analysis”
• “The Impact of Globalization on Indigenous Languages and Cultural Identity”
• “Food Sovereignty and Traditional Agricultural Practices Among Indigenous Communities”
• “Navigating Modernity: The Integration of Traditional Healing Practices in Contemporary Healthcare Systems”
• “Gender Roles and Equality in Hunter-Gatherer Societies: An Anthropological Perspective”
• “Sacred Spaces and Religious Practices: An Ethnographic Study of Pilgrimage Sites”
• “Youth Subcultures and Resistance: An Exploration of Identity and Expression in Urban Environments”
• “Cultural Constructions of Disability and Inclusion: A Cross-Cultural Analysis”
• “Interethnic Marriages and Cultural Syncretism: Case Studies from Multicultural Societies”
• “The Role of Folklore and Storytelling in Preserving Cultural Heritage”
• “Economic Anthropology of Gift-Giving and Reciprocity in Tribal Communities”
• “Digital Anthropology: The Role of Social Media in Shaping Political Movements”
• “Migration and Diaspora: Maintaining Cultural Identity in Transnational Communities”
• “Cultural Adaptations to Climate Change Among Coastal Fishing Communities”

Communication Studies

• “The Dynamics of Family Communication in the Digital Age: A Qualitative Inquiry”
• “Narratives of Identity and Belonging in Diaspora Communities Through Social Media”
• “Organizational Communication and Employee Engagement: A Case Study in the Non-Profit Sector”
• “Cultural Influences on Communication Styles in Multinational Teams: An Ethnographic Approach”
• “Media Representation of Women in Politics: A Content Analysis and Audience Perception Study”
• “The Role of Communication in Building Sustainable Community Development Projects”
• “Interpersonal Communication in Online Dating: Strategies, Challenges, and Outcomes”
• “Public Health Messaging During Pandemics: A Qualitative Study of Community Responses”
• “The Impact of Mobile Technology on Parent-Child Communication in the Digital Era”
• “Crisis Communication Strategies in the Hospitality Industry: A Case Study of Reputation Management”
• “Narrative Analysis of Personal Stories Shared on Mental Health Blogs”
• “The Influence of Podcasts on Political Engagement Among Young Adults”
• “Visual Communication and Brand Identity: A Qualitative Study of Consumer Interpretations”
• “Communication Barriers in Cross-Cultural Healthcare Settings: Patient and Provider Perspectives”
• “The Role of Internal Communication in Managing Organizational Change: Employee Experiences”

Information Technology

• “User Experience Design in Augmented Reality Applications: A Qualitative Study of Best Practices”
• “The Human Factor in Cybersecurity: Understanding Employee Behaviors and Attitudes Towards Phishing”
• “Adoption of Cloud Computing in Small and Medium Enterprises: Challenges and Success Factors”
• “Blockchain Technology in Supply Chain Management: A Qualitative Exploration of Potential Impacts”
• “The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Personalizing User Experiences on E-commerce Platforms”
• “Digital Transformation in Traditional Industries: A Case Study of Technology Adoption Challenges”
• “Ethical Considerations in the Development of Smart Home Technologies: A Stakeholder Analysis”
• “The Impact of Social Media Algorithms on News Consumption and Public Opinion”
• “Collaborative Software Development: Practices and Challenges in Open Source Projects”
• “Understanding the Digital Divide: Access to Information Technology in Rural Communities”
• “Data Privacy Concerns and User Trust in Internet of Things (IoT) Devices”
• “The Effectiveness of Gamification in Educational Software: A Qualitative Study of Engagement and Motivation”
• “Virtual Teams and Remote Work: Communication Strategies and Tools for Effectiveness”
• “User-Centered Design in Mobile Health Applications: Evaluating Usability and Accessibility”
• “The Influence of Technology on Work-Life Balance: Perspectives from IT Professionals”

Tourism and Hospitality

• “Exploring the Authenticity of Cultural Heritage Tourism in Indigenous Communities”
• “Sustainable Tourism Practices: Perceptions and Implementations in Small Island Destinations”
• “The Impact of Social Media Influencers on Destination Choice Among Millennials”
• “Gastronomy Tourism: Exploring the Culinary Experiences of International Visitors in Rural Regions”
• “Eco-Tourism and Conservation: Stakeholder Perspectives on Balancing Tourism and Environmental Protection”
• “The Role of Hospitality in Enhancing the Cultural Exchange Experience of Exchange Students”
• “Dark Tourism: Visitor Motivations and Experiences at Historical Conflict Sites”
• “Customer Satisfaction in Luxury Hotels: A Qualitative Study of Service Excellence and Personalization”
• “Adventure Tourism: Understanding the Risk Perception and Safety Measures Among Thrill-Seekers”
• “The Influence of Local Communities on Tourist Experiences in Ecotourism Sites”
• “Event Tourism: Economic Impacts and Community Perspectives on Large-Scale Music Festivals”
• “Heritage Tourism and Identity: Exploring the Connections Between Historic Sites and National Identity”
• “Tourist Perceptions of Sustainable Accommodation Practices: A Study of Green Hotels”
• “The Role of Language in Shaping the Tourist Experience in Multilingual Destinations”
• “Health and Wellness Tourism: Motivations and Experiences of Visitors to Spa and Retreat Centers”

Qualitative Research Topics

Qualitative Research Topics are as follows:

• Understanding the lived experiences of first-generation college students
• Exploring the impact of social media on self-esteem among adolescents
• Investigating the effects of mindfulness meditation on stress reduction
• Analyzing the perceptions of employees regarding organizational culture
• Examining the impact of parental involvement on academic achievement of elementary school students
• Investigating the role of music therapy in managing symptoms of depression
• Understanding the experience of women in male-dominated industries
• Exploring the factors that contribute to successful leadership in non-profit organizations
• Analyzing the effects of peer pressure on substance abuse among adolescents
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with disabilities in the workplace
• Understanding the factors that contribute to burnout among healthcare professionals
• Examining the impact of social support on mental health outcomes
• Analyzing the perceptions of parents regarding sex education in schools
• Investigating the experiences of immigrant families in the education system
• Understanding the impact of trauma on mental health outcomes
• Exploring the effectiveness of animal-assisted therapy for individuals with anxiety
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful intergenerational relationships
• Investigating the experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals in the workplace
• Understanding the impact of online gaming on social skills development among adolescents
• Examining the perceptions of teachers regarding technology integration in the classroom
• Analyzing the experiences of women in leadership positions
• Investigating the factors that contribute to successful marriage and long-term relationships
• Understanding the impact of social media on political participation
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with mental health disorders in the criminal justice system
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful community-based programs for youth development
• Investigating the experiences of veterans in accessing mental health services
• Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health outcomes
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding childhood obesity prevention
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful multicultural education programs
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with chronic illnesses in the workplace
• Understanding the impact of poverty on academic achievement
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with autism spectrum disorder in the workplace
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful employee retention strategies
• Investigating the experiences of caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease
• Understanding the impact of parent-child communication on adolescent sexual behavior
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding mental health services on campus
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful team building in the workplace
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with eating disorders in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of mentorship on career success
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with physical disabilities in the workplace
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful community-based programs for mental health
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with substance use disorders in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of social media on romantic relationships
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding child discipline strategies
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful cross-cultural communication in the workplace
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with anxiety disorders in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of cultural differences on healthcare delivery
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with hearing loss in the workplace
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful parent-teacher communication
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with depression in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of childhood trauma on adult mental health outcomes
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding alcohol and drug use on campus
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful mentor-mentee relationships
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with intellectual disabilities in the workplace
• Understanding the impact of work-family balance on employee satisfaction and well-being
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with autism spectrum disorder in vocational rehabilitation programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful project management in the construction industry
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with substance use disorders in peer support groups
• Understanding the impact of mindfulness meditation on stress reduction and mental health
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding childhood nutrition
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful environmental sustainability initiatives in organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with bipolar disorder in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of job stress on employee burnout and turnover
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with physical disabilities in recreational activities
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful strategic planning in nonprofit organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with hoarding disorder in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of culture on leadership styles and effectiveness
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding sexual health education on campus
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful supply chain management in the retail industry
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with personality disorders in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of multiculturalism on group dynamics in the workplace
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with chronic pain in mindfulness-based pain management programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful employee engagement strategies in organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with internet addiction disorder in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of social comparison on body dissatisfaction and self-esteem
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding childhood sleep habits
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful diversity and inclusion initiatives in organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with schizophrenia in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of job crafting on employee motivation and job satisfaction
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with vision impairments in navigating public spaces
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful customer relationship management strategies in the service industry
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with dissociative amnesia in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of cultural intelligence on intercultural communication and collaboration
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding campus diversity and inclusion efforts
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful supply chain sustainability initiatives in organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of transformational leadership on organizational performance and employee well-being
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with mobility impairments in public transportation
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful talent management strategies in organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with substance use disorders in harm reduction programs
• Understanding the impact of gratitude practices on well-being and resilience
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding childhood mental health and well-being
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful corporate social responsibility initiatives in organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with borderline personality disorder in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of emotional labor on job stress and burnout
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with hearing impairments in healthcare settings
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful customer experience strategies in the hospitality industry
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with gender dysphoria in gender-affirming healthcare
• Understanding the impact of cultural differences on cross-cultural negotiation in the global marketplace
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding academic stress and mental health
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful supply chain agility in organizations
• Understanding the impact of music therapy on mental health and well-being
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with dyslexia in educational settings
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful leadership in nonprofit organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with chronic illnesses in online support groups
• Understanding the impact of exercise on mental health and well-being
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding childhood screen time
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful change management strategies in organizations
• Understanding the impact of cultural differences on international business negotiations
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with hearing impairments in the workplace
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful team building in corporate settings
• Understanding the impact of technology on communication in romantic relationships
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful community engagement strategies for local governments
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of financial stress on mental health and well-being
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful mentorship programs in organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with gambling addictions in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of social media on body image and self-esteem
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding childhood education
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful virtual team management strategies
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with dissociative identity disorder in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of cultural differences on cross-cultural communication in healthcare settings
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with chronic pain in cognitive-behavioral therapy programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful community-building strategies in urban neighborhoods
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with alcohol use disorders in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of personality traits on romantic relationships
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding mental health stigma on campus
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful fundraising strategies for political campaigns
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with traumatic brain injuries in rehabilitation programs
• Understanding the impact of social support on mental health and well-being among the elderly
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with chronic illnesses in medical treatment decision-making processes
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful innovation strategies in organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with dissociative disorders in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of cultural differences on cross-cultural communication in education settings
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding childhood physical activity
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful conflict resolution in family relationships
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with opioid use disorders in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of emotional intelligence on leadership effectiveness
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with learning disabilities in the workplace
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful change management in educational institutions
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with eating disorders in recovery support groups
• Understanding the impact of self-compassion on mental health and well-being
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding campus safety and security measures
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful marketing strategies for nonprofit organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with postpartum depression in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of ageism in the workplace
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with dyslexia in the education system
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with anxiety disorders in cognitive-behavioral therapy programs
• Understanding the impact of socioeconomic status on access to healthcare
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding childhood screen time usage
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful supply chain management strategies
• Understanding the impact of parenting styles on child development
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with addiction in harm reduction programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful crisis management strategies in organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with trauma in trauma-focused therapy programs
• Examining the perceptions of healthcare providers regarding patient-centered care
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful product development strategies
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with autism spectrum disorder in employment programs
• Understanding the impact of cultural competence on healthcare outcomes
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with chronic illnesses in healthcare navigation
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful community engagement strategies for non-profit organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with physical disabilities in the workplace
• Understanding the impact of childhood trauma on adult mental health
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful supply chain sustainability strategies
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with personality disorders in dialectical behavior therapy programs
• Understanding the impact of gender identity on mental health treatment seeking behaviors
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with schizophrenia in community-based treatment programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful project team management strategies
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder in exposure and response prevention therapy programs
• Understanding the impact of cultural competence on academic achievement and success
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding academic integrity
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful social media marketing strategies
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with bipolar disorder in community-based treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of mindfulness on academic achievement and success
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with substance use disorders in medication-assisted treatment programs
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with anxiety disorders in exposure therapy programs
• Understanding the impact of healthcare disparities on health outcomes
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful supply chain optimization strategies
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with borderline personality disorder in schema therapy programs
• Understanding the impact of culture on perceptions of mental health stigma
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with trauma in art therapy programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful digital marketing strategies
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with eating disorders in online support groups
• Understanding the impact of workplace bullying on job satisfaction and performance
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding mental health resources on campus
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful supply chain risk management strategies
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with chronic pain in mindfulness-based pain management programs
• Understanding the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy on social anxiety disorder
• Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on mental health and well-being
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with eating disorders in treatment programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful leadership in business organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with chronic pain in cognitive-behavioral therapy programs
• Understanding the impact of cultural differences on intercultural communication
• Examining the perceptions of teachers regarding inclusive education for students with disabilities
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with depression in therapy programs
• Understanding the impact of workplace culture on employee retention and turnover
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with traumatic brain injuries in rehabilitation programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful crisis communication strategies in organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with anxiety disorders in mindfulness-based interventions
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with chronic illnesses in healthcare settings
• Understanding the impact of technology on work-life balance
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with learning disabilities in academic settings
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful entrepreneurship in small businesses
• Understanding the impact of gender identity on mental health and well-being
• Examining the perceptions of individuals with disabilities regarding accessibility in public spaces
• Understanding the impact of religion on coping strategies for stress and anxiety
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with chronic illnesses in complementary and alternative medicine treatments
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful customer retention strategies in business organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with postpartum depression in therapy programs
• Understanding the impact of ageism on older adults in healthcare settings
• Examining the perceptions of students regarding online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful team building in virtual work environments
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with gambling disorders in treatment programs
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with chronic illnesses in peer support groups
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful social media marketing strategies for businesses
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with ADHD in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of sleep on cognitive and emotional functioning
• Examining the perceptions of individuals with chronic illnesses regarding healthcare access and affordability
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with borderline personality disorder in dialectical behavior therapy programs
• Understanding the impact of social support on caregiver well-being
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with chronic illnesses in disability activism
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful cultural competency training programs in healthcare settings
• Understanding the impact of personality disorders on interpersonal relationships
• Examining the perceptions of healthcare providers regarding the use of telehealth services
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with dissociative disorders in therapy programs
• Understanding the impact of gender bias in hiring practices
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with visual impairments in the workplace
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful diversity and inclusion programs in the workplace
• Understanding the impact of online dating on romantic relationships
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding childhood vaccination
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful communication in healthcare settings
• Understanding the impact of cultural stereotypes on academic achievement
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with substance use disorders in sober living programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful classroom management strategies
• Understanding the impact of social support on addiction recovery
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding mental health stigma
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful conflict resolution in the workplace
• Understanding the impact of race and ethnicity on healthcare access and outcomes
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder in treatment programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful project management strategies
• Understanding the impact of teacher-student relationships on academic achievement
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful customer service strategies
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with social anxiety disorder in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of workplace stress on job satisfaction and performance
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with disabilities in sports and recreation
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful marketing strategies for small businesses
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with phobias in treatment programs
• Understanding the impact of culture on attitudes towards mental health and illness
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding sexual assault prevention
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful time management strategies
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with addiction in recovery support groups
• Understanding the impact of mindfulness on emotional regulation and well-being
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with chronic pain in treatment programs
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful conflict resolution in romantic relationships
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with autism spectrum disorder in social skills training programs
• Understanding the impact of parent-child communication on adolescent substance use
• Examining the perceptions of parents regarding childhood mental health services
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful fundraising strategies for non-profit organizations
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with chronic illnesses in support groups
• Understanding the impact of personality traits on career success and satisfaction
• Exploring the experiences of individuals with disabilities in accessing public transportation
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful team building in sports teams
• Investigating the experiences of individuals with chronic pain in alternative medicine treatments
• Understanding the impact of stigma on mental health treatment seeking behaviors
• Examining the perceptions of college students regarding diversity and inclusion on campus.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

500+ Criminal Justice Research Topics

500+ Google Scholar Research Topics

300+ AP Research Topic Ideas

300+ American History Research Paper Topics

1000+ Sociology Research Topics

300+ Communication Research Topics

A Qualitative Exploration of Everyday Resilience in Kindergarten Children

• Original Paper
• Published: 24 August 2023
• Volume 32 , pages 3947–3959, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Rochelle Thompson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0597-0949 1 ,
• Emily Thornton 2 ,
• Ryan O’Byrne 2 &
• Margaret N. Lumley 2  

356 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Much resilience research in young children focuses on high-risk samples with marked adversity despite the broad acknowledgement that all children, regardless of levels of adversity experienced, have opportunities to engage in resilience processes (Avdagic et al., 2018; Ungar, 2019). To advance understanding of “everyday resilience”, the current study explores resilience qualitatively in a convenience sample of kindergarten children who were not selected on basis of a risk factor. Caregivers ( n  = 91) answered a phone interview question in which they were asked to; “Describe a time when your child overcame a difficult situation.” Responses to this indirect assessment of resilience were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Although participants were asked to speak about resilience indirectly, responses were largely consistent with well-established conceptualizations of resilience, including the social-ecological framework for resilience. Indeed, caregivers conceptualized childhood resilience as occurring across four main domains: change, peer(s), health, and rule following. In terms of resilience behaviours, caregivers reported a mix of child- and adult-initiated strategies: the most frequently reported child-initiated resilience strategies were seeking adult support and confronting the adversity, and the most common adult-initiated strategies included verbal collaboration with the child regarding the adversity and problem-solving. Findings support the use of indirect measures of resilience to reduce socially desirable responding and capture detailed and nuanced responses.

Adult support was the resilience strategy used most frequently among all sources of daily adversity, reflecting the centrality of adult support to childhood resilience building.

Use of the Five-Minute Speech Sample to indirectly enquire about resilience resulted in responses consistent with existing conceptualizations of resilience responses, supporting its use as an alternative to written responses or quantitative measures.

Consistent with the social ecological model of resilience, participants described resilience processes occurring in key contexts (e.g. school, home) that should be purposefully designed to facilitate the development of resilience (e.g., introducing new experiences).

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Lou Sole, M., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instruments measuring resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing , 29 (2), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/01460860600677643 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Allen, S. F., Pfefferbaum, B., Nitiema, P., Pfefferbaum, R. L., Houston, J. B., McCarter, G. S., & Gray, S. R. (2015). Resilience and coping intervention with children and adolescents in at-risk neighborhoods. Journal of Loss and Trauma , 21 (2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2015.1072014 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Archdall, K., & Kilderry, A. (2016). Supporting children’s resilience: Early childhood educator understandings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood , 41 (3), 58–65.

Avdagic, E., Wade, C., McDonald, M., McCormack, D., Dakin, P., Macvean, M., & Phan, T. (2018). Resilience in young children: A Delphi study to reach consensus on definitions, measurement and interventions to build resilience. Early Child Development and Care , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1556211 .

Bellis, M. A., Hardcastle, K., & Ford, K., et al. (2017). Does continuous trusted adult support in childhood impart life-course resilience against adverse childhood experiences—a retrospective study on adult health-harming behaviours and mental well-being. BMC Psychiatry , 17 , 110.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2014). What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being , 9 (1), 26152.

Brownlee, K., Rawana, J., Franks, J., Harper, J., Bajwa, J., O’Brien, E., & Clarkson, A. (2013). A systematic review of strengths and resilience outcome literature relevant to children and adolescents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal , 30 (5), 435–459.

Collette, A. & Ungar, M. (2020). Resilience of individuals, families, communities, and environments: Mutually dependent protective processes and complex systems. In Systemic Research in Individual, Couple, and Family Therapy and Counseling , pp. 97–111. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36560-8_6 .

Epstein, M. H. (2000). The Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: A strength-based approach to assessment. Diagnostique , 25 (3), 249–256.

Epstein, M. H., & Synhorst, L. (2008). Preschool Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (PreBERS): Test–retest reliability and inter-rater reliability. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 17 , 853–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9194-1 .

Fisak, B., Gallegos-Guajardo, J., Verreynne, M., & Barrett, P. (2018). The results of a targeted open trial of the Fun FRIENDS combined with a concurrent parent-based intervention. Mental Health & Prevention , 10 , 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2018.03.001 .

Giallo, R., Gartland, D., Woolhouse, H., Mensah, F., Westrupp, E., Nicholson, J., & Brown, S. (2018). Emotional-behavioral resilience among children of first-time mothers with and without depression across the early childhood period. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 42 (2), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416687413 .

Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 38 (5), 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x .

Helfgott, A. (2018). Operationalising systemic resilience. European Journal of Operational Research , 268 (3), 852–864.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research , 15 (9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 .

Johnson, B. (2008). Teacher-student relaitonships which promote resilience at school: A micro-level analysis of students’ views. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling , 36 (4), 385–398.

LeBuffe, P. A., & Naglieri, J. A. (1999a). The devereux early childhood assessment . Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Press Publishing.

Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist , 73 (1), 26 https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151 .

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The delphi method (pp. 3-12). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Magaña, A. B., Goldstein, M. J., Karno, M., Miklowitz, D. J., Jenkins, J., & Falloon, I. R. (1986). A brief method for assessing expressed emotion in relatives of psychiatric patients. Psychiatry Research , 17 (3), 203–212.

Maltby, J., Day, L., Hall, S. S., & Chivers, S. (2017). The Measurement and Role of Ecological Resilience Systems Theory Across Domain-Specific Outcomes: The Domain-Specific Resilient Systems Scales. Assessment , 1073191117738045.

Masten, A. S. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Development , 85 (1), 6–20.

Masten, A. S. (2018). Resilience theory and research on children and families: Past, present, and promise. Journal of Family Theory & Review , 10 (1), 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12255 .

Masten, A. S. & Palmer, A. R. (2019). Parenting to promote resilience in children. In Handbook of parenting (pp. 156-188). Routledge.

McCarty, C. A., Lau, A. S., Valeri, S. M., & Weisz, J. R. (2004). Parent-child interactions in relation to critical and emotionally overinvolved expressed emotion (EE): is EE a proxy for behavior? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 32 (1), 83–93.

McMillan, J., & Reed, D. (1993). Defying the Odds: A Study of Resilient At-Risk Students. Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium . https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED389780.pdf .

McMillan, J. H., & Reed, D. F. (1994). At-risk students and resiliency: Factors contributing to academic success. The Clearing House , 67 (3), 137–140.

O’Donnell, D. A., Schwab–Stone, M. E., & Muyeed, A. Z. (2002). Multidimensional resilience in urban children exposed to community violence. Child Development , 73 (4), 1265–1282.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron? Quality & Quantity , 41 (2), 233–249.

Pooley, J. A., & Cohen, L. (2010). Resilience: A definition in context. Australian Community Psychologist , 22 (1), 30–37.

Google Scholar  

Shamblin, S., Graham, D., & Bianco, J. A. (2016). Creating trauma-informed schools for rural appalachia: The partnerships program for enhancing resiliency, confidence, and workforce development in early childhood education. School Mental Health , 8 , 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9181-4 .

Sher-Censor, E. (2015). Five Minute Speech Sample in developmental research: A review. Developmental Review , 36 , 127–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.01.005 .

Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 15 (3), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972 .

Smith-Osborne, A., & Whitehill Bolton, K. (2013). Assessing resilience: A review of measures across the life course. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work , 10 (2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2011.597305 .

Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014). Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology , 5 (1), 25338 https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338 .

Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. The British Journal of Social Work , 38 (2), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl343 .

Ungar, M. (2019). Designing resilience research: Using multiple methods to investigate risk exposure, promotive and protective processes, and contextually relevant outcomes for children and youth. Child Abuse & Neglect , 96 , 104098 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104098 .

Weston, S., Hawes, D. J., & Pasalich, D. S. (2017). The Five Minute Speech Sample as a measure of parent-child dynamics: Evidence from observational research. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 26 (1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0549-8 .

Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes , 9 (1), 8 https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-8 .

Worku, B. N., Abessa, T. G., Franssen, E., Vanvuchelen, M., Kolsteren, P., & Granitzer, M. (2018). Development, social-emotional behavior, and resilience of orphaned children in a family-oriented setting. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 27 , 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0908-0 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, N1G2W1, Canada

Rochelle Thompson

Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, N1G2W1, Canada

Emily Thornton, Ryan O’Byrne & Margaret N. Lumley

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rochelle Thompson .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Resilience in Kindergarten: Coding Scheme

General Coding Guidelines

A. Code for present (1) or absent (0)

B. Domain: pick one domain for each example they provide (i.e. if they provide 2 separate examples, can put 2 domains, but do not double code the same example)

C. Strategy: double code as necessary

D. Outcome: forced choice, code either positive or negative holistically based on response

Domain of Adversity : what is the difficult situation the child faced?

D_PEER: adversity that arises from the attempt to make friends, or conflict between child and peer(s)

- Making friends: not noticing social cues; struggling to make good friends; being too shy to talk to others; not branching out and trying to make friends

- Conflict: peer breaking child’s toy; peer(s) telling child they don’t want to be friends anymore; peer saying/doing something mean to child; exclusion from a group

D_FOLLOW_RULES: adversity that arises from breaking rules, not following rules, or parent saying “no”

Ex: not “getting their way”; being told they are not allowed to do/get something

D_CHANGE: change in routine or change from expectation; transition to a new environment or a large lifestyle change that is long-term/permanent; experiencing something for the first time

- Short term: plans changing for the day; new staff/students at school; classmate/friend moving away; giving away old clothes and toys

- Long term: transition to school; moving houses/schools; new sibling; parents’ divorce

- New experience: swimming in the deep end; riding a bike without training wheels; leaving parents; starting lessons/extracurriculars; new social experiences

** Do not code death of loved ones as D_CHANGE

D_HEALTH: health scare/hospitalization/death of a person or pet in close relationship to the child or a personal physical health scare/hospitalization

- Other: death of pet/grandparent; relative in hospital/accident/injured

- Self: concussion; stutter (seeing a speech pathologist for it, not social adversity associated with it); broken bone; disease

D_PARENT_ NONE: parent expresses that their child has not faced any difficult situations **do not code if parent cannot think of a specific situation but does not express explicitly that their child has not faced any difficult situations

- Haven’t had to overcome / encountered many / been faced with a whole lot of difficult situation(s)

Initial Reaction

IR_NEGATIVE: child reacts with sadness, fear, anger, generally is upset

- Sad; shed tears; devastated; crying

- Angry; tantrum; throwing things; screaming; stomping away

- Scared; panic; freak out; anxious; nervous; worried

IR_POSITIVE: Child reacts to the difficult situation by knowing what to do and staying calm, collected, parent describes this reaction in a positive way

Ex: Confidence; calm

Child-initiated: the child entirely makes their own decision, uninfluenced by parent/teacher/adult.

S_CI_CONFRONT: child directly addresses the person/source of the adversity verbally or physically

- standing up for themselves; asking to be included; coming to a mutual agreement (child with other child); correcting another child; following through with a parent’s directions to confront peer(s); talking back to parent

- Telling themselves a mantra

- Following through with a parent’s directions to confront peer(s)

- Helping someone who is facing adversity and is upset/scared by consoling them or facing the difficult situation with/for the other person

S_CI_APPLY_PRIOR_KNOWLEDGE: child uses lessons they’ve learned from prior experiences and applies them to the current situation

- connecting knowledge /strategies between home and school; using a mantra in a different context than when it was learned; repeating something they have been told/ strategies they have learned to another person to console them/stand up to them

- Using general tools/strategies parents have taught them (not specific “do this tomorrow,” more social skills like how to get along with someone, etc.)

- Having an easier time trying new things (generally) because of successful past first experiences

S_CI_REFRAME: child finds positive aspect of the situation

Ex: being grateful for the little time left doing the activity; looking forward to the next activity/next day; celebrating the life of a pet

S_CI_EXPERIENCE: child comes to accept the circumstances of the situation over time or with repeated exposure to it

- coming to a realization that everything is going to be okay

- overcoming the adversity by experiencing it more; coming back and saying they are ready to face the situation/consequences

Keywords: coming around; getting used to

S_CI_EMOTIONAL_REGULATION: child calms themselves down as a strategy to overcome the adversity

Ex: figuring out how to control feelings when tired/overwhelmed/angry; adjusting feelings in a transition

S_CI_IMITATE: child imitates other children are doing or how others are reacting to the situation

Ex: copying the actions of family/peers; feeling more comfortable when seeing others in the same situation

Keywords: copy, mimic

S_CI_COMMUNICATE: child discusses the topic with an adult (does not matter whether they indicate seeking advice, seeking comfort, etc.)

Ex: coming home and telling parents; telling a teacher; consoling someone verbally; expressing personal wants to parent/adult who has control over the situation; seeking an adult when upset

Keywords: Talk about it, bring it up, coming to [the parent], telling what is going on

S_CI_PEER SUPPORT: seeking comfort from friends or using the suggestions of friends

Ex: holding hand of friend when leaving parent; choosing friends who are supportive; seeking other friends when excluded from a group

Adult-Initiated: parent takes part in solving the adversity with varying degrees of involvement with the child

S_AI_SOLVE: adult solves situation without involvement from the child

Ex: taking child out of adverse environment, contacting parents/teachers/supervisors of child and arranging for problem to be solved

Keywords: rescue, solve

S_AI_EXTRINSIC_MOTIVATION: use of punishment or reward to incentivize child

Ex: using chocolate bars; toys; bribes; sending to room

S_AI_VERBAL_COLLABORATION: parent and child have a single conversation, work together over time through multiple discussions about the adversity, or adult provides reassurance to the child but does not try to come up with solution

- creating a plan for the child; asking child questions; outlining choices the child can make in the situation; giving advice; providing directions; talking to the child about the situation

- connecting the specific situation to a more broad life lesson/skill/moral; helping the child to see another’s perspective

- preparing the child for a future difficult situation; working with the child to come up with mantras/things to say to themselves or to others when the situation repeats itself

- telling child it is going to be okay; reassuring the child that they are not in the wrong; encouraging the child to keep going

Keywords: talk, told, discuss, work with, said, asked

S_AI_BEHAVIOURAL_COLLABORATION: parent and child practice a specific strategy or work together overtime to overcome the adversity through physical practice

- scaffolding/taking steps behaviourally

- Practicing strategies with family

- Showing the child how to deal with the situation; role playing the situation at home

Keywords: show, practice

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Thompson, R., Thornton, E., O’Byrne, R. et al. A Qualitative Exploration of Everyday Resilience in Kindergarten Children. J Child Fam Stud 32 , 3947–3959 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-023-02660-7

Download citation

Accepted : 11 August 2023

Published : 24 August 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-023-02660-7

Share this article

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

• Kindergarten
• Indirect assessment
• Social-ecological model of resilience
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 21 March 2024

How older adults manage misinformation and information overload - A qualitative study

• M. Vivion 1 , 2 ,
• V. Reid 2 , 3 ,
• E. Dubé 2 , 4 ,
• A. Coutant 3 , 5 ,
• A. Benoit 6 &
• A. Tourigny 7 , 8  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  871 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by an abundance of information, some of it reliable and some of it misinformation. Evidence-based data on the impact of misinformation on attitudes and behaviours remains limited. Studies indicate that older adults are more likely to embrace and disseminate misinformation than other population groups, making them vulnerable to misinformation. The purpose of this article is to explore the effects of misinformation and information overload on older adults, and to present the management strategies put in place to deal with such effects, in the context of COVID-19.

A qualitative exploratory approach was adopted to conduct this research. A total of 36 semi-structured interviews were conducted with older adults living in Quebec, Canada. The interviews were fully transcribed and subjected to a thematic content analysis.

Participants said they could easily spot misinformation online. Despite this, misinformation and its treatment by the media could generate fear, stress and anxiety. Moreover, the polarization induced by misinformation resulted in tensions and even friendship breakdowns. Participants also denounced the information overload produced largely by the media. To this end, the participants set up information routines targeting the sources of information and the times at which they consulted the information.

Conclusions

This article questions the concept of vulnerability to misinformation by highlighting older adults’ agency in managing misinformation and information overload. Furthermore, this study invites us to rethink communication strategies by distinguishing between information overload and misinformation.

Peer Review reports

The COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by a steady stream of information that was described by the World Health Organization as an “infodemic,” referring to an epidemic of information, some of which was reliable while other items of information were erroneous or false [ 1 ]. This information overload refers to a state where and individual’s efficiency in selecting, using, processing, and making sense of information is hampered by the quantity of pertinent and possibly valuable information [ 2 ]. Information overload is closely linked to information redundancy, as they mutually increase each other [ 3 ]. Information redundancy designates repeated messages within a sequence of received messages [ 3 ]. In addition to pertinent information, information overload is further exacerbated by disinformation and misinformation [ 1 ]. This state can be accompanied by a feeling of loss of control and anxiety [ 2 ]. Information overload has essentially been studied in relation to the issues of misinformation and disinformation, rather than as a separate phenomenon [ 4 , 5 ]. Disinformation and misinformation refer to incorrect information [ 6 , 7 ]. While disinformation implies malicious intent, and is associated with fake news and conspiracy theories, for example, misinformation does not imply malicious intent [ 6 , 8 ]. The distinction therefore lies in the intention to deceive or not, which is difficult to prove. For this reason, the term “misinformation” will be used in this article to refer to information created and disseminated irrespective of any intention to deceive.

Health misinformation refers, more specifically, to “information that is contrary to the epistemic consensus of the scientific community regarding a phenomenon” [ 9 ]. Misinformation is most often characterized by a negative tone, the preponderance of anecdotes and personal experiences, the promotion of anti-scientific narratives, and rapid dissemination [ 9 ]. In health, misinformation is particularly problematic, as it can lead to misperceptions leading to potentially harmful action [ 9 , 10 ]. For example, a false connection between the measles-mumps and rubella vaccine and autism led to decrease in vaccination coverage at the end of the 1990s and is still a common reason for vaccine refusal today [ 11 ]. In fact, during the pandemic, misinformation first took the the form of calls suggesting the necessity to stock up on certain supplies (e.g, toilet paper, food), and then focused mainly on unproven “treatments” or techniques to prevent infection (drinking water with lemon or coconut oil, probiotics) and then to forms of denials of the data about the number of cases and deaths– or even the existence of the disease [ 12 , 13 ]. It would also discredit the scientific community and public health authorities, or make it more difficult for people to determine which information to believe, and fuel a sense of panic [ 14 ]. More generally, misinformation can lead to various forms of violence (xenophobia, bullying, verbal or physical violence), discrimination such as anti-Asian attitudes and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, and psychological distress [ 11 , 15 ]. Also, during the pandemic, an increase in uncertainty and a heightened need for new information, especially in healthcare, to address it led to an information overload [ 14 ].

Despite this, the effects of misinformation remain unclear, and empirical evidence of its impact on behaviour and attitudes is limited [ 10 ]. A systematic review reveals that articles reporting concrete cases of damage caused by misinformation are rather rare [ 16 ]. Concerns about misinformation persist, rooted in the belief that it can significantly influence people’s thoughts and behaviors [ 10 ]. This, in turn, poses a potential threat to both public health and the integrity of democracy [ 10 ].

As social media can rapidly and widely disseminate information, they are frequently mentioned in articles discussing misinformation [ 13 , 17 ]. In this regard, studies on the dissemination of misinformation indicate that older adults are more “vulnerable” to misinformation, as they tend to subscribe to erroneous messages spread online and are more responsible for their dissemination than other population groups [ 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Studies explain this “vulnerability” by the lack of skills needed to find and evaluate online information [ 15 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Some authors associate this lack of skill with a “cognitive deficit” which refers to the decline in cognitive abilities that occurs with aging, [ 19 , 20 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ] affecting the ability to distinguish true from false information. This one-size-fits-all approach, which most often groups together adults aged 65 and over, is criticized for neglecting the diversity of uses and experiences of the Internet, and also for denying older adults’ agency, thus perpetuating ageism [ 29 , 30 ]. Moreover, most studies focused on older adults’ engagement with misinformation come from the realm of politics or the media [ 19 , 31 ], rather than health-related issues [ 9 , 32 ]. This raises the question of the transferability of the results from these studies on the vulnerability of older people to health misinformation [ 9 ].

The purpose of this article is to explore the effects of misinformation and information overload for older adults, and to present the management strategies put in place to deal with them. This article is part of a larger research project to study the informational practices of Quebec older adults in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The general results of this research were presented in another article [ 33 ].

Research ethics

The study protocol was approved by the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal (CIUSSS) Ethics Committee (Project 2022 − 829).

Design and settings

This research employed an exploratory approach based on the principles of the sociology of uses [ 34 ]. The relevance of the sociology of uses approach for analyzing informational practices has been established by several studies [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. This approach recontextualizes the uses of information and communication technologies within their social and everyday contexts [ 40 ]. The concept of ‘’usages’’ as mobilized by the sociology of uses emphasizes the autonomy of users and their appropriation of technical devices [ 38 ]. This approach thus opposes a deterministic view of technology. In this study, participants were questioned about the devices used and their routines associated with information practices (time of day, order in which sources are consulted, activities performed simultaneously). We also made sure to account for the complexity of informational practices, which is essential to consider in accordance with sociology of uses [ 38 ]. For instance, the interview framework was designed to inquire about participants’ multiple sources of information and material supports they used [ 38 ]. This approach also guided our analysis by focusing on the potentialities related to the agency of individuals when they consume media content. The research project was developed in collaboration with the Conference of the Regional Roundtables for Older Adults in Quebec (CTRCAQ).

Participants

Participants were recruited through a list created as part of weekly surveys designed to assess adherence to COVID-19-related health measures among the Quebec population. These surveys were conducted by the Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec (INSPQ). More information on the survey methods and limitation is available here [ 41 ].The database contained participants’ age, self-identified gender, place of residence, and email addresses, but was not linked with complete answers to the survey. During the surveys, participants could indicate whether they wished to be contacted by other research teams to participate in studies. The research team sent an invitation email to the participants based on criteria such as age, gender, and residency. During the surveys, participants could indicate whether they wished to be contacted by other research teams to participate in studies. The research team sent an invitation email to the participants [ 41 ]. The participants had to be aged 60 or older, residing in the province of Quebec, and fluent in either French or English. The participants were informed that the study would delve into how they obtain information during the pandemic, including the sources they use, and how they assess its credibility. Participants received financial compensation of $30. Informed consent, either written or oral, was obtained before each interview.

To comply with preventive measures, the interviews were conducted online during the summer of 2021, 15 months after the start of the pandemic. Lasting approximately one hour, they were conducted in French. Topics covered included: sources of information used, their information needs arising from the pandemic, ways of appropriating information and assessing its validity or credibility, and the impact of this information on their health-related behaviours. Participants were also asked about the change in their information practices as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and about how they perceived misinformation. The English interview guide is provided in a supplementary file.

Data analysis

Interviews were transcribed in full. We conducted a thematic analysis that involves categorizing a given dataset into predetermined themes that accurately represent the analyzed content, tailored to the research objectives [ 42 ]. Although the coding was guided by theoretical framework of informational practice, new themes could be added over the course of coding, as in the case of the information overload management strategies theme. Verbatim could be associated with more than one theme. The categorization of verbatim excerpts into different categories was carried out using NVivo software. For this paper, we translated verbatim excerpts from French to English, ensuring the quality of our work by validating it with a certified translator. An initial coding was carried out by A.B, then revised by M.V. A comparison of the two researchers’ coding led to a consensus on the meaning of certain ambiguous extracts and their association with a theme.

First, we will present the participant profiles. Subsequently, we will highlight the study’s results, organized around four main themes: information sources; effects of misinformation; consequences of information overload; and strategies for managing misinformation and information overload.

Participant profiles

A total of 36 semi-structured interviews were conducted with Quebec men ( n  = 18) and women ( n  = 18), living in a house or apartment in an urban ( n  = 20) or rural ( n  = 16) setting. Only one participant lived in a seniors’ residence. The majority of participants were aged between 60 and 69 ( n  = 28), with the remainder aged 70 and over. The distribution of participants according to high school, college or university level of education was the same ( n  = 12). Participant demographics are presented in Table  1 .

Information sources

During the pandemic, older adults in our study consulted multiple sources of information. Traditional media outlets, including television, were the preferred sources. Social media, especially Facebook, were used more to consult Market Place, for entertainment purposes and to communicate with their loved ones. As one participant had put it:

“With a cousin who lives in the greater Vancouver area, we don’t see her regularly, so we chat about stuff on Facebook. Then, I was faced with some mortality, people who passed away recently, so Messenger or Facebook would allow us to communicate. So it’s more about keeping in touch with people you don’t see very often, or with people you haven’t seen in a long time.” (P 27; 62 years old).

Some sources are more closely associated with the presence of misinformation. For one participant, using social media to stay in touch sometimes meant being exposed to what they perceived as misinformation: “I look at my son, my youngest, who sends me videos, stuff on Facebook… I don’t know where he gets this stuff… no. [sigh] It’s arrogance, I call it fake news.” (P 30; 64 years old).

The effects of misinformation

According to a number of participants, misinformation was generally easy to detect, as the information often “makes no sense at all,” so that “it’s often almost easy to see” (P 14;71 years old). While most report the harmful effects of this phenomenon (confusion, fear, worry, anxiety), one participant pointed out that misinformation at least had the advantage of potentially raising questions: ‘’Fake news, their only positive aspect is that it can make us question things a bit’’ (P 36; 71 years old).

Although misinformation affected participants, many indicated that it was more detrimental to their loved ones. Firstly, emotional responses such as confusion or fear were mentioned:

“Well, I think it’s a shame because it confuses people. It scares people; you know, I find it, uh, stupid that people invent things like… a friend of mine, she told me “you know, those who get vaccinated will all be dead in two years,” and I said “well yes, well yes.” But in my head I’m thinking… Come on, wake up. That makes no sense, there won’t be anyone left on Earth.” (P 33; 65 years old).

Another participant explained: “When we have our seniors’ meetings. A lot of things are said on social media and they hear it and it scares them. Often, it’s out of fear…”. (P 31; 72 years old).

Exposure to misinformation also led to worry: “I was reading [on social media] at first, then when I saw that it was starting to get me worried, I stopped that too, because it didn’t make sense, on social media, there’s really nothing serious about it.“(P 33;65 years old).

For many, misinformation was generating anxiety, and for some, even aggression, to which exposure to repeated negative information in the media was also contributing:

“We don’t have any hopeful news, it’s always about getting bad news fed into our heads, which creates a climate of anxiety, a climate that I consider unhealthy. There’s a huge level of aggression in Quebec right now, which is totally unacceptable. I blame the news a lot for that, because it creates chaos and enormous stress in society by repeating… non-stop, nothing but bad news. Also, there’s a lot of misinformation circulating and that creates anxiety, anguish and aggression in many communities.” (P 29; 64 years old).

The second type of effect identified and denounced by the participants was the resulting polarization. Misinformation was associated with heated debates between friends. A participant claimed to have occasionally listened to conspiracy theorists but did not like them. They mentioned engaging in debates at times with a politically far-right friend who is associated by the participant with such theories: “I have friends on the right, on the far right, I don’t have many, but I have one, but we often bump into each other, but it’s a good omen, as they say.” (P 9; 65 years old).

On this subject, one participant denounced the term “covidiot” used by the media during the pandemic, which she felt contributed to polarization. This portmanteau, combining the words “covid” and “idiot”, refers to someone who behaves in a stupid way that risks spreading the infectious disease covid-19. The expression is often attributed to individuals who refuse to accept vaccines or question preventive measures. Polarization had, for some, led to broken friendships:

“Apart from that, I’d say we had one friend who we cast aside because she became completely… and I mean completely conspiratorial. It was ridiculous. She was so exaggerated that we didn’t even question it anymore. We respected her, we didn’t laugh in front of her, but the minute she was gone… In fact, in my opinion, it’s mental illness. I don’t know why it’s called mental illness due to fear of the pandemic, but for me it’s clearly that. I’m not a doctor or a psychologist, but… […] She was affected in the head.” (P 18; 64 years old).

Consequences of information overload

In addition to misinformation, most participants deplored information overload and redundancy in the media. Faced with the repetition of information, participants were “fed up with hearing about it” (P 15; 66 years old) and were irritated. “At first, it was awful. It was just that” (P 22; 63 years old). Another participant lamented the way the media operates under the logic of streaming:

“Also, it’s repetitive […]. In these times, the news is non-stop, so it becomes a show. Then, at a certain point, it’s clear that we’re fed up. It’s become so repetitive […] We’re buried in information. We receive an enormous amount of information.” (P 29; 64 years old).

While information overload was a source of stress for many participants, it was especially the type of information conveyed by the media that seemed responsible. The daily presentation of the number of cases and deaths, as well as the description of situations in hospitals and Long-Term Care Facilities (CHSLDs), were considered particularly anxiety-provoking by participants. As one participant had put it: “When they started mentioning the number of cases per day… When we saw that, well, when we saw that going up, it was a bit stressful as well.” (P 4; 64 years old).

The major concern about the situation in CHSLDs and the treatment of the older adults was also explained by the particular point of view of our participants, some of whom dread the day when they will have to move to this type of facility for people who are not self-sufficient:

“[…] for me personally, it was very stressful to - it seems to me that I was so glued to the TV. Just to find out what was happening, well, as much in the CH [SLD] for the elderly. It certainly made me wonder, in the sense that I’m coming from there. You know, I’m going that way. […]. But it’s worrying. When you look at how they’ve been treated and everything. My God, to think I’m going in that direction. It’s like, it’s not very reassuring.” (P 2; 64 years old).

Strategies for managing misinformation and information overload

Analysis of the data revealed that participants implement several strategies to limit the effects of misinformation and information overload, or anxiety-provoking information.

First, most of them claimed to limit themselves to so-called reliable sources, meaning for them traditional media such as Radio-Canada and TVA Nouvelles, which for many participants provide access to “real” information and “real” news:

“How can I put this… the real news…, the verified news, comes from television media: TVA or Radio-Canada or RDI. If it’s fake news that comes through them, they’re the ones with a hell of a problem, because they haven’t checked the news. So, in principle, if it comes from Wikipedia, the news […] from another site that isn’t an official site, well, I don’t even pay attention to it. When I get news that doesn’t come from a place that’s known and approved by me, let’s put it this way, it’s quickly passed over, forget it, I don’t even pay attention to it.” (P 32; 64 years old).

To avoid misinformation, most participants did not seek information on social media, which they consider not to be reliable. Older adults in our research therefore appeared particularly critical of the validity of information on social media. One participant stated that he prefers to rely on specialists, “good sources of information,” since social media offers quick access to information that is not necessarily reliable:

“Who else is going to give me real information? Not Facebook, it’s not real, it’s not the so-called Facebook specialists with degrees as long as your arm. That’s where you come in, you do a Google search on them, and you can’t find them. That’s not where the real information is going to come from, so get informed, talk to your doctor, turn to WHO, turn to your government, we’ve got government specialists there… Caroline Quach, she’s no pushover. We have good sources of information, but the world wants to have fast information (P 1; 67 years old).

In short, many participants said they don’t pay attention to the kind of information associated with social media. For one participant, ignoring the misinformation circulating on social media reflected his general disinterest in these platforms: “Because there’s information out there for everyone, as the English term fake news says. So, since I’m not a big fan of social media, I wasn’t interested either. […]” (P 17; 68 years old). The same participant asserted that he doesn’t let himself be influenced by misinformation, and follows his own opinion, whatever the cost:

“And when they [social media users] said things about the pandemic, the vaccine or whatever, I let them talk, but that didn’t influence me […] I formed an opinion and then I said to myself, ‘I have an idea, it may not be the best one, but I tell myself I’m going to go all the way’, quite simply. (P 17;68 years old)

Then, among the participants using social media, many said they have unsubscribed or blocked people spreading misinformation, so as not to be exposed to it themselves. Referring to some of these people, one participant mentioned:

“[…] And their response was, “Well, you go ahead, and as soon as you’re all vaccinated, I won’t have to go. So I thought, “Okay, it’s the same as what you think, because your freedom is more important than your collective freedom,” and then it was “Okay, unsubscribe. I’m not stubborn with people who’ve gone that route, and there’s nothing that’s going to make them change their minds. […]. I used to have a certain number of friends on Facebook, and now I have a few less, because the ones who were… who were spreading false and misleading information, well, they’ve disappeared from my Facebook friends list.” (P 27; 62 years old).

One participant shared that blocking these people has helped her feel better in general:

“Then those who put on too much, well, I blocked them. […]. Because I don’t want anyone messing with my head, so I blocked them, you know, there are fanatics in everything […] So I blocked people on that, anti-covid, and my God, I’ve been feeling good ever since.” (P 33; 65 years old).

As it was highlighted previously, disregarding of ignoring statements from friends who share misinformation is also a strategy applied in face-to-face interactions.

Finally, to cope with information overload, some of the older adults interviewed mentioned setting up special information routines during the pandemic. Indeed, many said they stopped listening to the news all day long, but that they preserved a specific period in their daily schedule to get informed, whether it was the time of a radio program or the newscast. “We stopped listening to the news all day long; at a certain point, it’s too depressing, and we listened to it once at the end of the day, on TV,” shares one (P 14; 71 years old). This strategy consists in taking a step back and limiting the time devoted to news, so as not to be overwhelmed by it.

Very similar to the statistics on information sources consulted by older adults, the participants in our study favoured traditional media [ 43 ]. The fear, anxiety, stress and worry generated by misinformation and information overload are consistent with the findings of other studies [ 12 , 14 ]. However, for the participants, these harmful effects of misinformation would affect those closest to them more, illustrating the third-person effect, i.e., the perception that others are more vulnerable to misinformation than the self, highlighted by other studies [ 44 , 45 ]. Beyond negative emotions, our results reveal that misinformation contributes to polarization between individuals, sometimes leading to friendship breakdowns. Thus, it is social relationships that suffer from the conflicts caused by misinformation. For older adults, who may have a fragile social network [ 46 ], this issue can be crucial, as they risk finding themselves alone [ 47 ].

The susceptibility of older adults to online misinformation is based on the idea that they are “lagging behind” the rest of the population in their use of digital technology [ 23 , 30 , 48 , 49 ]. However, the participants in our study claim to be able to spot misinformation easily, and although they are sometimes exposed to it, this does not mean that they adhere to it. In fact, our results show that older people are critical, active and make sure to implement strategies to protect themselves, regardless of their gender or level of education. These findings are in line with those of a study which found that older adults understand the necessity for a degree of caution while using the internet [ 50 ]. Based on these results, it seems appropriate to question the concept of vulnerability to misinformation and its association with older people. Indeed, while advanced age is negatively associated with internet skills [ 23 , 29 , 32 ], other factors also need to be taken into account, such as level of education, socio-economic position and user experience [ 23 , 29 ]. One study reveals that, compared to the use of the internet for capital-enhancing activities, age is a less relevant variable than “autonomy of use” and the ability to surf the web [ 29 ]. In other words, the “age divide” in relation to digital media is often more complex than it seems as it involves multiple factors such as physical access, digital literacy, information and communication technologies utilization as well as socio-economic factors [ 29 ]. The results of our research seem to concur with the conclusion that age alone does not explain the ability to spot misinformation and suggest significant heterogeneity among older adults. It is crucial to be attuned to social and cultural variances among older people [ 51 ]. Differences within this group are all the more numerous as older adults have accumulated many life experiences [ 51 ], and the experience of aging varies from person to person [ 48 ]. In public health, standardizing approaches to older people can be harmful, as they tend to favour ageist approaches [ 33 ].

Lastly, several studies are alarmed by information avoidance [ 52 , 53 ], which is a strategy for avoiding exposure to information deemed threatening or undesirable [ 54 ]. Establishing an information routine by targeting information sources to be consulted at specific times can, on the contrary, be seen as a healthy strategy for preserving mental health and better managing the information overload created in particular by the media, while remaining informed.

Research and practice recommendations

Initiatives developed to combat information overload focus primarily on misinformation. However, our study suggests treating information overload as a distinct phenomenon, as this will enable us to rethink public health communication strategies and target the messages that are essential for limiting information overload.

Furthermore, our study reveals that health misinformation circulating on social media can not only generate negative emotions, but the polarization that breaks down dialogue and isolates individuals also appears to be crucial to health issues [ 55 , 56 , 57 ]. This is why it is essential to consider polarization in the development of public health interventions and communication strategies [ 58 , 59 ].

Finally, the results of our study highlight the agency of older adults to implement strategies for managing misinformation and information overload. Our research illustrate the relevance of relying on older adults’ ability to act [ 20 , 60 , 61 ] for the development of public health interventions [ 62 , 63 ].

This study has a number of limitations. Older adults living in residential facilities are often excluded from studies, due to the added difficulty of accessing this group. As these individuals are likely to have more physical and cognitive limitations, this aspect of recruitment taints research results, over-representing the realities of healthy older adults [ 48 ]. This is the case for this research, given that only one participant lived in a seniors’ residence. Indeed, this is a frequent limitation characterizing studies of internet use by older adults in general [ 48 ]. In addition, as recruitment was online this assumes that participants possessed some familiarity with the internet and computers. Another limitation of this study concerns the social desirability bias on the part of participants, characteristic of qualitative research. This bias was limited by the fact that the interviews were conducted by people trained in qualitative research. Qualitative researchers are trained to establish trust with participants. Moreover, they employ questioning techniques such as formulating open-ended questions and adopted an attitude of active listening during the interview.

Our results show that, although older adults may have a facility for detecting misinformation, they are affected by polarization and information overload. We therefore suggest that communication strategies be developed to minimize polarization and information overload.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l ’Île-de-Montréal (CIUSSS) Ethics Committee regulation. Data are available upon reasonable request. Inquiries for data access should be sent to the corresponding author who then contact the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l ’Île-de-Montréal (CIUSSS) Ethics Committee for permission to openly share the data.

Abbreviations

World Health Organization (Organisation Mondiale de la santé, OMS)

Conference of the Regional Roundtables for Seniors in Quebec

Centres d’hébergement de soins de longue durée (residential and long-term care centres/residential centres)

Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal

World Health O. Infodemic mangement-Infodemiology. WHO 2020.

Link E. Information avoidance during health crises: predictors of avoiding information about the COVID-19 pandemic among German news consumers. Inf Process Manag. 2021;58(6):102714.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Liang H, Fu K-w. Information overload, similarity, and redundancy: Unsubscribing Information sources on Twitter. J Computer-Mediated Communication. 2016;22(1):1–17.

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Aïm O, Depoux A. Naissance de l’infodémiologie. Le Cas De l’OMS: vers une nouvelle organisation mondiale de l’information sanitaire? Questions de Communication. 2022;41(1):159–72.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gallotti R, Valle F, Castaldo N, Sacco P, De Domenico M. Assessing the risks of ‘infodemics’ in response to COVID-19 epidemics. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4(12):1285–93.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Parsons Leigh J. Sensibiliser, mobiliser et outiller: des repères pour la population face à l’infodémie et à la COVID-19. Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada 2021.

Vivion M, Gauvin L. Intégrer L’infosurveillance, l’infodémiologie et une recherche interventionnelle conséquente dans nos systèmes de santé publique pour mieux protéger et promouvoir la santé de la population Au Canada: idées et perspectives. Can J Public Health. 2022;113:147–54.

El Mikati IK, Hoteit R, Harb T, El Zein O, Piggott T, Melki J, Mustafa RA, Akl EA. Defining misinformation and related terms in Health-related literature: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e45731.

Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D. Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41(1):433–51.

Nan X, Wang Y, Thier K. Health misinformation. The Routledge Handbook of Health Communication. edn.: Routledge; 2021. pp. 318–32.

Ali S. Combatting against Covid-19 & misinformation: a systematic review. Hum Arenas. 2022;5(2):337–52.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Radwan E, Radwan A, Radwan W. Challenges facing older adults during the COVID-19 outbreak. Eur J Environ Public Health. 2020;5(1):em0059.

Bora K, Das D, Barman B, Borah P. Are internet videos useful sources of information during global public health emergencies? A case study of YouTube videos during the 2015–16 Zika virus pandemic. Pathogens Global Health. 2018;112(6):320–8.

Rocha YM, de Moura GA, Desidério GA, de Oliveira CH, Lourenço FD, de Figueiredo Nicolete LD. The impact of fake news on social media and its influence on health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. J Public Health 2021:1–10.

Brashier NM, Schacter DL. Aging in an era of fake news. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2020;29(3):316–23.

Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2869–71.

Rebillard F. La Rumeur Du PizzaGate Durant La présidentielle de 2016 aux États-Unis: Les Appuis Documentaires Du numérique Et De l’Internet à L’agitation Politique. Réseaux 2017(2):273–310.

Buchanan T. Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(10):e0239666.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guess A, Nagler J, Tucker J. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci Adv. 2019;5(1):eaau4586.

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moore RC, Hancock JT. A digital media literacy intervention for older adults improves resilience to fake news. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):6008.

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sun Z, Yang B, Zhang R, Cheng X. Influencing factors of understanding COVID-19 risks and coping behaviors among the elderly population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(16):5889.

Hargittai E, Piper AM, Morris MR. From internet access to internet skills: digital inequality among older adults. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2019;18:881–90.

Van Deursen A, Van Dijk J. Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media Soc. 2011;13(6):893–911.

Verma R, Saldanha C, Ellis U, Sattar S, Haase KR. eHealth literacy among older adults living with cancer and their caregivers: a scoping review. J Geriatric Oncol. 2022;13(5):555–62.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Allcott H, Gentzkow M. Social Media and fake news in the 2016 election. J Economic Perspect. 2017;31(2):211–36.

Hess TM, Smith BT, Sharifian N. Aging and effort expenditure: the impact of subjective perceptions of task demands. Psychol Aging. 2016;31(7):653.

Pennycook G, Cannon TD, Rand DG. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018;147(12):1865.

Salthouse TA. When does age-related cognitive decline begin? Neurobiol Aging. 2009;30(4):507–14.

Hargittai E, Dobransky K. Old dogs, new clicks: Digital inequality in skills and uses among older adults. Can J Communication. 2017;42(2):195–212.

Rasi P, Vuojärvi H, Rivinen S. Promoting media literacy among older people: a systematic review. Adult Educ Quarterly: J Res Theory. 2021;71(1):37–54.

Grinberg N, Joseph K, Friedland L, Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science. 2019;363(6425):374–8.

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Seo H, Blomberg M, Altschwager D, Vu HT. Vulnerable populations and misinformation: a mixed-methods approach to underserved older adults’ online information assessment. New Media Soc. 2021;23(7):2012–33.

Guzun N, Tourigny A, Dubé E, Coutant A, Vivion M. Ageism through the informational practices during COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. Can J Public Health.

Millette M, Myles D, Millerand F, Latzko-Toth G. Méthodes De recherche en contexte numérique: une orientation qualitative. les Presses de l’université de Montréal; 2020.

Jouet E, Flora LG, Las Vergnas O. Construction Et reconnaissance des savoirs expérientiels des patients. Pratiques de formation-Analyses. 2010;2010:58–9.

Google Scholar  

Pasquier D. Les pratiques numériques en milieu populaire. Études 2019(6):51–60.

Pasquier D. Classes populaires en ligne: des «oubliés» de la recherche? Réseaux 2018(2):9–23.

Proulx S, Rueff J. Actualité des méthodes de recherche en sciences sociales sur les pratiques informationnelles. Centre d’études sur les médias; 2018.

Wagner MC, Boczkowski PJ. The reception of fake news: the interpretations and practices that shape the consumption of perceived misinformation. Digit Journalism. 2019;7(7):870–85.

Proulx S. La Sociologie Des usages, et après? Revue française des Sci de l’information et de la Communication 2015(6).

COVID-19. Sondages sur les atttitudes et comportements des adultes québécois [ https://www.inspq.qc.ca/covid-19/sondages-attitudes-comportements-quebecois ].

Guest G, MacQueen K, Namey E. Applied Thematic Analysis. In. Thousand Oaks, California; 2012.

Académie de la transformation n. NetTendances. Actualités en ligne, réseaux sociaux et balados. In.; 2023.

Altay S, Acerbi A. People believe misinformation is a threat because they assume others are gullible. New Media Soc 2023, 0(0).

Corbu N, Oprea D-A, Negrea-Busuioc E, Radu L. They can’t fool me, but they can fool the others!’Third person effect and fake news detection. Eur J Communication. 2020;35(2):165–80.

Dahlberg L, McKee KJ, Frank A, Naseer M. A systematic review of longitudinal risk factors for loneliness in older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2022;26(2):225–49.

Donovan NJ, Blazer D. Social isolation and loneliness in older adults: review and commentary of a National academies Report. Am J Geriatric Psychiatry. 2020;28(12):1233–44.

Hunsaker A, Hargittai E. A review of internet use among older adults. New Media Soc. 2018;20(10):3937–54.

Jacobson J, Lin CZ, McEwen R. Aging with technology: seniors and mobile connections. Can J Communication. 2017;42(2):331–57.

De Gottrau L. Les quêtes d’informations de santé des personnes âgées sur internet: engagement et désengagement numérique. 2016.

Givskov C, Deuze M. Researching new media and social diversity in later life. New Media Soc. 2018;20(1):399–412.

Barbour JB, Rintamaki LS, Ramsey JA, Brashers DE. Avoiding Health Information. J Health Communication. 2012;17(2):212–29.

Soroya SH, Farooq A, Mahmood K, Isoaho J, Zara S-e. From information seeking to information avoidance: understanding the health information behavior during a global health crisis. Inf Process Manag. 2021;58(2):102440.

Howell JL, Crosier BS, Shepperd JA. Does lacking threat-management resources increase information avoidance? A multi-sample, multi-method investigation. J Res Pers. 2014;50:102–9.

Jiang X, Su M-H, Hwang J, Lian R, Brauer M, Kim S, Shah D. Polarization over vaccination: ideological differences in Twitter expression about COVID-19 vaccine favorability and specific hesitancy concerns. Social Media + Soc. 2021;7:205630512110484.

Mønsted B, Lehmann S. Characterizing polarization in online vaccine discourse—A large-scale study. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(2):e0263746.

Nicola GD, Mambou VT, Kauermann G. COVID-19 and social media: beyond polarization. PNAS Nexus 2022, 2(8).

Sylvester S, Motta M, Trujillo KL, Callaghan T. Vaccinating across the aisle: using co-partisan source cues to encourage COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the ideological right. J Behav Med. 2023;46(1–2):311–23.

Whitehead HS, French CE, Caldwell DM, Letley L, Mounier-Jack S. A systematic review of communication interventions for countering vaccine misinformation. Vaccine. 2023;41(5):1018–34.

Leist AK. Social media use of older adults: a mini-review. Gerontology. 2013;59(4):378–84.

Trentham B, Sokoloff S, Tsang A, Neysmith S. Social media and senior citizen advocacy: an inclusive tool to resist ageism? Politics Groups Identities. 2015;3(3):558–71.

Nef T, Ganea RL, Müri RM, Mosimann UP. Social networking sites and older users–a systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr. 2013;25(7):1041–53.

Welch V, Petkovic J, Pardo JP, Rader T, Tugwell P. Interactive social media interventions to promote health equity: an overview of reviews. Health Promotion Chronic Disease Prev Canada: Res Policy Pract. 2016;36(4):63.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are immensely grateful for the collaborative efforts of the Conference of the Regional Roundtables for Seniors in Quebec (CTRCAQ) throughout this entire project, as well as all the participants who generously dedicated their time to our project. Additionally, we would like to thank Catherine Girard and Alexandre Tremblay for their valuable contributions to data collection and analysis. We are also grateful to Christopher Fletcher (Université Laval) for his sound advice and comments offered during the data collection and analysis.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Award Number: (MM1: 174884). The development of the research project was supported by the Reseau de recherche en santé des populations du Québec (RRSPQ) (Quebec Population Health Research Network) .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social and Preventive Medecine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada

CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec, Canada

M. Vivion, V. Reid & E. Dubé

Laboratoire sur la communication et le numérique (LabCMO), Montreal, Canada

V. Reid & A. Coutant

Department of Anthropology, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada

Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montreal, Canada

GDR AREES (Groupe de recherche: Arctique: Enjeux pour l’environnement et les sociétés) du CRNS, Paris, France

Institut sur le vieillissement et la participation sociale des aînés de l’Université Laval, Quebec, Canada

A. Tourigny

VITAM Centre de recherche en santé durable, Quebec, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm contributions to the paper as follows: study development and design: MV; ED; AC; AT; data collection: MV; AB Author; analysis and interpretation of results: MV; ED; AC; AB; AT; draft manuscript preparation: MV and VR. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Vivion .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study protocol was approved by the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l ’Île-de-Montréal (CIUSSS) Ethics Committee (Project 2022 − 829). Informed consent, either written or oral, was obtained before each interview. Some participants provided only written informed consent, while others provided only oral informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Vivion, M., Reid, V., Dubé, E. et al. How older adults manage misinformation and information overload - A qualitative study. BMC Public Health 24 , 871 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18335-x

Download citation

Received : 24 January 2024

Accepted : 12 March 2024

Published : 21 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18335-x

Share this article

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

• Misinformation
• Information overload, social media, informational practices
• Older adults, Quebec

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Frontiers in Transplantation
• Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation
• Research Topics

VCA in Context: Reconstructive, Regenerative and Transplant Surgery

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

This Research Topic brings together specialists from psychological, surgical, ethical, immunological and historical and patient perspectives to evaluate the impact and future of VCA as a form of surgical innovation, with a core focus on comparative dimensions across Europe and the United States. Articles will ...

Keywords : PROMs, Psychosocial, Reconstructive Medicine, Regenerative Medicine, VCA

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines, participating journals.

Manuscripts can be submitted to this Research Topic via the following journals:

total views

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

An official website of the United States government

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Practical Considerations in Qualitative Health Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Deepthi s. varma.

1 Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions and College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Mary E. Young

2 Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Public Health and Health Professions and College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Consuelo M. Kreider

Katherine williams.

3 Department of Counselor Education, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Krishna Vaddiparti

Christina parisi, luz m. semeah.

4 Veterans Rural Health Resource Center- Gainesville (VRHRC) within the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Gainesville, FL, USA

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced both quantitative and qualitative health researchers to adapt and strategize data collection strategies without causing any harm to the participants or researchers. This has resulted in utilizing various types of strategies such as online surveys and synchronous virtual platforms such as Zoom and Webex. This transition from face-to-face to synchronous online platforms has helped in increasing coverage as well as reaching participants who are otherwise unreachable. While quantitative health researchers seem to have made a seamless transition to synchronous online platforms, qualitative health researchers who rely on studying participants in their “real-world-settings” are facing unique challenges with online data collection strategies. This article critically examines the benefits and challenges of implementing qualitative health research studies via synchronous online platforms and provides several practical considerations that can inform qualitative health researchers. It can also assist Institutional Review Board members in reviewing and implementing qualitative health research study protocols in a manner that preserves the integrity, richness, and iterative nature of qualitative research methodology.

Qualitative research is a process of understanding and discovery based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore social or human experiences. The researcher analyzes words and text, reports detailed views of informants, builds a complex, holistic picture of a phenomenon, and conducts the study in a natural setting ( Miles et al., 2020 ). The researcher has greater control over the “instrument” for data collection since he or she will modify the questions based on participants’ verbal responses and non-verbal behaviors ( Agee, 2009 ; Cresswell, 2007 ). Qualitative health research (QHR) is a specialized form of qualitative research that focuses on peoples’ experiences with health, illness, healthcare system, and healthcare practice, whereby patients’ particular needs regarding privacy and emotionality are taken into account within the research methodology ( Morse, 2011 ).

As pragmatists ( Patton, 2002 ) and “bricoleurs” ( Denzin, 2010 ), health researchers have always risen to the challenge of continuing timely and critical studies to impact the health of individuals and communities. An extensive literature review of published articles showed that qualitative health researchers have long been utilizing synchronous and asynchronous online methods to conduct qualitative research. These methods included telephone interviews, e-mails, online chat rooms, Skype interviews, and online meeting rooms ( Cater, 2011 ; Janghorban et al., 2014 ; Kenny, 2005 ; Murray, 1995 , 1997 ; Sah et al., 2020 ; Turney & Pocknee, 2005 ; Tuttas, 2015 ). Several of these researchers have also reported on the challenges and benefits of these online platforms. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced qualitative health researchers to rapidly adapt their tried and true in-person methods and to explore, innovate, and quickly overcome challenges posed by use of the various available video-conferencing technologies in conducting QHR via synchronous online platforms.

During the last year, to accommodate the pandemic-posed social distancing and other restrictions, researchers began migrating to fully online data collection methods such as virtual focus groups, remote interviews, and online self-report measures and surveys. These strategies seem to be working effectively for quantitative researchers. In the case of survey research, the now commonplace use of online platforms has reduced the burden of traditional barriers to research participation such as travel to the research site, finding childcare, and working around work and/or school schedules.

The use of online technologies has increased anonymity and provided participants the opportunity of responding to a survey at their own leisure and convenience. However, qualitative researchers have found it more difficult to effectively transition methods to an online platform. These researchers agree with the quantitative researchers on the benefits of an online or a remote interface platform; however, qualitative researchers are struggling to adapt and apply the core principles of qualitative research such as integrity and richness in the virtual world. Previous reports on online qualitative health research strategies such as online focus group discussions via synchronous and asynchronous interviewing have reported benefits such as increased coverage of otherwise hard-to-reach populations, opportunity for participants to participate from the comfort of their homes, decreased peer pressure in providing socially desirable responses, and increased flexibility. These reports have also highlighted several challenges such as difficulty observing and recording non-verbal cues from participants, controlling respondent’s environment to reduce noise, eliminating distractions, ensuring privacy, and limitations due to the degree of digital literacy of participants during synchronous qualitative data collection ( Cater, 2011 ; Janghorban et al., 2014 ; Kenny, 2005 ; Sah et al., 2020 ; Turney & Pocknee, 2005 ; Tuttas, 2015 ).

At present, in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic and required social distancing, there is an absence of any clear guidelines and practical tips for conducting online QHR. This article is the product of a reflective process and ongoing discussions among the authors, a group of interdisciplinary qualitative health researchers who are members of a regularly scheduled Qualitative Research Colloquium at the Health Science Center of a large public university in the United States.

The methodological decisions described in this article were made in the context of permission from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to make rapid changes so long as researchers protected the integrity of the research process and maintained the safety and informed consent of participants. The authors, based on their own experiences and extensive literature review, have engaged in ongoing reflective and critical examination of the benefits and challenges of conducting QHR via remote, online environments. This article presents practical considerations that can inform both qualitative researchers and IRB members to review and implement qualitative research protocols in a manner that will preserve the integrity, richness, and iterative nature of qualitative research methodology. We will start by examining the benefits and challenges of implementing a QHR study via an online environment.

As noted in several previous studies, online interviews and focus groups reduce the burden on the participants by allowing them to participate from the comfort of their own homes in a safe environment ( Sah et al., 2020 ; Turney & Pocknee, 2005 ; Tuttas, 2015 ). They need not worry about transportation to the research site and/or securing childcare during the time that they spend with the researchers ( Kenny, 2005 ). Another advantage from the participants’ perspective is their ability to control their anonymity by turning off the video camera, if available, during online interviews or focus group discussions, and/or by using a pseudonym for their on-screen name. This anonymity may provide increased confidence to discuss or disclose information without the fear of being judged by researchers or other participants ( Kenny, 2005 ). Previous online qualitative studies also have described a lesser degree of “social loafing,” or a “synergistic bandwagon effect” compared to a face-to-face focus group discussion ( Kenny, 2005 ; Tuttas, 2015 ). This is especially important while researching areas such as HIV/AIDS, substance use, sexual abuse, mental health, or health behaviors. In addition to providing a virus-safe distancing environment, online focus groups may also assist the researchers by increasing the geographical coverage of their participants ( Sah et al., 2020 ). It helps the researchers to include rural populations and those who live in communities with internet and technology access but are geographically distant from the research site or culturally and linguistically different from the research institutions’ culture and language. Expanding abilities to capture diverse perspectives and experiences serves to make the sample more inclusive and the findings more transferable, thus potentially increasing the impact of the studies on social justice.

Finally, online formats may provide a clearer flow of information during focus group discussions, with less cross-talk and participants talking over each other. While we have observed fewer interruptions, arguments, or counter arguments in the online focus group environment, as in previous studies there does appear to be a greater opportunity for participants to provide well-thought-out responses ( Kenny, 2005 ; Turney & Pocknee, 2005 ; Tuttas, 2015 ). It is as if participants’ familiarity with remote conferencing technology and accompanying netiquette (e.g., muted microphones and use of chat function to prompt topical shifts) is translated to a perceptively more orderly nature of the online focus groups. However, the mute function also works to mute out participants’ immediate agreements, rebuttals, and social conventions for indicating the listener’s engagement (e.g., the “uh hum”s). This requires the researcher to be especially attentive to visual cues such as head nods and facial grimaces in response to the dialog.

We have observed that many focus group participants use the long pauses between their own verbal contributions to listen while simultaneously formulating their own response to the original prompt—which, when finally articulated are often notably well thought out. While the online format seems to elicit richer verbal responses than in face-to-face discussions, there is a notably dampened pace and emotional tone to the focus group discussions that, for some participants, can actually foster better “following along.” The more orderly nature of the online focus groups requires a slightly different skill set from the facilitator—one that seems more akin to skills required of a panel moderator who must direct or set ground rules for when it is a panelist’s turn to speak. Due to the reduction or absence of non-verbal cues and different responsiveness as described above, more attention and concentration may be required from facilitators and co-facilitators during data collection for these focus groups.

Privacy and confidentiality of the information shared by participants from their home with the researcher is a significant challenge for qualitative health researchers whose area of research include HIV/AIDS, sexual abuse, substance use, mental health, stigma, and other sensitive topics. While the presence of other family members in the same room or in close proximity may be discouraged, ultimately, such privacy is—for the most part—out of the researcher’s control. Breach of confidentiality may be a higher risk when participants are in the comfort of their home environment, as participants might disclose—or others might overhear—what is being discussed. These issues should be addressed in the informed consent process. Other types of distractions, such as children or family members requiring attention, pets appearing and interrupting, phones ringing, delivery persons or visitors coming to the door, or a myriad of other diversions that are less frequent during a face-to-face setting but commonplace at home, will not be able to be controlled by the researchers when remoting into the participant’s environment. These distractions could not only interrupt the flow of discussions, but also could prolong the duration of the interview or discussions.

Moreover, several social and personal elements of the interviews are lost in the absence of face-to-face interactions with the participant during the interviewing process. A qualitative researcher gains meaningful insights from the appearance of the participants, and by observing and recording the non-verbal cues and non-verbal behaviors of individual participants and between the participants ( Denham & Onwuegbuzie, 2013 ; Morgan, 1993 ). Online or telephone research without a video camera prevents the researcher from making these observations and capturing cues of their behaviors. Even when a video camera is used, the viewing range is restricted and does not provide the researcher the full context. Though taken for granted, such cues provide important insights into understanding the problem that is being researched ( Denham & Onwuegbuzie, 2013 ). Additionally, an online interview also sometimes limits reciprocal discussions amongst participants. Several of these shortcomings could be significantly improved by encouraging participants to speak with and respond to all members in the group. However, this will require a skilled qualitative researcher who is cognizant of the limitations of an online focus group discussion and can provide clear guidance on rules of interaction and the order and manner of contributing to the discussions.

Last, when conducting online focus groups or interviews, technological challenges such as availability of equipment, internet service limitations, and hesitation in using new platforms may arise; this might be particularly, but not exclusively, the case with participants from rural or low resource communities. The potential for technology barriers must be prepared for in any online exchanges. Researchers must solve problems on the fly, and monitor the chats for participants with bandwidth, cellular connection, or internet stability problems. Researchers must facilitate the use of textual contributions or call-in functions by participants who do not have adequate bandwidth to use the video function. At times, without the availability of additional research personnel, the focus group facilitator becomes responsible for moderating the discussion while simultaneously monitoring for and eliciting contributions via textual chat as well as providing technical support to participants. Having a co-facilitator or research staff available to manage the logistics of problems with signing in, audio/video problems, accompanying demographic questionnaires, and compensation distribution, can be most helpful. Additionally, exclusive dependence in an online format could result in the systematic elimination of certain groups of people such as older adults, those less educated, and those who reside in rural areas from research studies. As such, researchers must be careful to mitigate as best as possible such a “ digital divide, ” which could exacerbate already existing health disparities.

Practical Considerations for Researchers and IRB Members

Based on the novel and varied experiences obtained while conducting virtual qualitative research studies by the diverse group of authors of this article, below are some pointers that need to be considered by the researchers and the IRB members who review and approve QHR study protocols.

• The responsibility of researchers to “do no harm” has long been a tenet of ethical research ( Kostovicova & Knott, 2020 ). Therefore, the qualitative health researcher should ensure privacy and confidentiality by emphasizing that the online interview or focus group be conducted in a private room, to reduce distraction and minimize the chances of others overhearing the conversation with the researcher. Participants could also be provided with a list of best practices, ahead of the research interview, that would minimize distractions and increase privacy. This is especially important in health research studies that collect protected health information and discuss sensitive topics.
• A welcome page, as recommended by previous studies ( Fox et al., 2007 ), or at least the creation of a presentation slide, is strongly encouraged where the participants are provided the title and a brief abstract explaining the goals of the study. This could assist the participants to have a clearer understanding of the study as they are waiting for other participants to join the forum.
• Whenever possible, the researchers must encourage the participants to turn on the camera during the research study. This would help the researchers observe and record the respondent’s facial expressions and verbal behaviors as they normally do in an in-person group discussion or interview.
• The qualitative research study design must explicitly state how the researchers will ensure recruiting people who may not have access or the technical know-how to participate in an online research study. This is important for ensuring representativeness and to avoid increasing the already existing “ digital divide” resulting from the disparities in infrastructure, skills, and usage patterns in the communities being studied ( Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008 ). Lack of attention to these details could also contribute to increasing the health disparity that currently impacts many communities.
• Researchers should ensure trustworthiness, especially during the time of COVID-19, since many community members are more reluctant to share personal information online with a researcher than during a face-to-face interaction. Privacy and confidentiality can be ensured by conducting interviews by sending a link with a passcode to the participant to sign in and establishing a strong rapport by explaining the safeguards before starting the discussions.
• Researchers must be flexible in their approach since the interview or the data collection session could be interrupted by several technological issues such as poor internet connection, or loss of audio or video. The researcher should be prepared to employ strategies, such as slowing the cadence of their speech or directing participants to communicate via the “chat” function, or utilize the call-in function to ensure preservation of the verbal communications during times when bandwidth is insufficient to support smooth and synchronized audio and visual communications. This is especially important if the researcher is recording the interviews for later transcription and analysis.
• Most importantly, online interactions do not necessarily allow development of a strong rapport—as is easier to foster with in-person face-to-face interactions—during the brief duration of the synchronous remote interactions. Previous studies have shown that even with extensive preparation before the interviews, each interview is unique and unpredictable; we cannot foresee how the researcher-participant relationship will develop and how this will impact the knowledge we generate ( Swauger, 2011 ; Tuttas, 2015 ). Therefore, it is important for all researchers to scale down their expectations regarding what can and cannot be achieved through an online platform. Research protocols and data collection plans need to be developed in consideration of this reality.
• The circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic reinforce the need for establishing and maintaining a constant back and forth dialog with the IRB who can serve as an important resource to help ensure the procedures being considered continue to uphold the integrity of the research process and maintain the safety and informed consent of participants.
• Finally, the researchers should be aware of limitations to providing adequate emotional support to online participants if they strongly experience emotions such as fear, sadness, or anger ( Corbin & Morse, 2003 ). Researchers should be extra vigilant in detecting any type of distress among the participants and should have a plan of addressing any observed distress articulated in the research protocol. Delving deeply into certain sensitive topics such as deviant or illegal activities that expose the vested interests of powerful persons or persons engaged in coercive, violent, or domineering behaviors, abusive behaviors, and certain religious rituals and practices could arouse powerful emotions among participants. Lack or reduction of reciprocity in an online format could leave the participant uncomfortable and unsupported during or after the interview. These limitations need to be highlighted and addressed in the research protocol, informed consent document, and IRB approval process.

This article aims to highlight several key points to be considered while planning and conducting QHR studies on an online or virtual platform. Health research studies cannot be paused or postponed during a pandemic without important mortality and morbidity implications for the community—implications that stem from interruptions or a lack of new findings regarding health care and interventions. Many qualitative research methods such as focus group discussions and in-depth interviews are frequently conducted as part of pilot studies by quantitative researchers. As such, pausing these research efforts can hinder the start and completion of many types of studies. The COVID-19 pandemic has made us aware of the unpredictability of world events which can force us to think out of the box. As researchers, while we can prepare for several uncertainties, it is important for qualitative health researchers to be prepared to improvise or re-strategize the research process according to the context so that we can continue doing timely, effective, and impactful health research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Deepthi S. Varma https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1163-0377

• Agee J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 22 ( 4 ), 431-447. 10.1080/09518390902736512. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cater J. K. (2011). Skype: A cost effective method for qualitative research . Rehabilitation Counselors & Educators Journal , 7 , 10-17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin J., Morse J. M. (2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics . Qualitative Inquiry , 9 ( 3 ), 335-354. 10.1177/1077800403009003001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cresswell J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denham M. A., Onwuegbuzie A. J. (2013). Beyond words: Using nonverbal communication data in research to enhance thick description and interpretation . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 12 ( 1 ), 670-696. 10.1177/160940691301200137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs . Qualitative Inquiry , 16 ( 6 ), 419-427. 10.1177/1077800410364608. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox F. E., Morris M., Rumsey N. (2007). Doing synchronous online focus groups with young people . Qualitative Health Research , 17 ( 4 ), 539-547. 10.1177/1049732306298754. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hargittai E., Hinnant A. (2008). Digital inequality . Communication Research , 35 ( 5 ), 602-621. 10.1177/0093650208321782. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Janghorban R., Roudsari R. L., Taghipour A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research . International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being , 9 ( 1 ), 24152. 10.3402/qhw.v9.24152. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenny A. J. (2005). Interaction in cyberspace: An online focus group . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 49 ( 4 ), 414-422. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03305.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kostovicova D., Knott E. (2020). Harm, change and unpredictability: The ethics of interviews in conflict research . Qualitative Research , 1468794120975657. 10.1177/1468794120975657. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles M., Huberman A., Saldaña J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art . SAGE Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781483349008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. (2011). What is qualitative health research? The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 401-414). SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray P. J. (1995). Research data from cyberspace . Health Informatics , 1 ( 2 ), 73-76. 10.1177/146045829500100208. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray P. J. (1997). Using virtual focus groups in qualitative research . Qualitative Health Research , 7 ( 4 ), 542-549. 10.1177/104973239700700408. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry . Qualitative Social Work , 1 ( 3 ), 261-283. 10.1177/1473325002001003636. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sah L. K., Singh D. R., Sah R. K. (2020). Conducting qualitative interviews using virtual communication tools amid COVID-19 pandemic: A learning opportunity for future research . Journal of Nepal Medical Association , 58 ( 232 ), 1103-1106. 10.31729/jnma.5738. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swauger M. (2011). Afterword: The ethics of risk, power, and representation . Qualitative Sociology , 34 ( 3 ), 497-502. 10.1007/s11133-011-9201-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turney L., Pocknee C. (2005). Virtual focus groups: New frontiers in research . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 4 ( 2 ), 32-43. 10.1177/160940690500400203. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tuttas C. A. (2015). Lessons learned using web conference technology for online focus group interviews . Qualitative Health Research , 25 ( 1 ), 122-133. 10.1177/1049732314549602. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]