Catherine Pope

Bio: Catherine Pope is an academic researcher from University of Oxford. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Qualitative research. The author has an hindex of 61, co-authored 229 publications receiving 32234 citations. Previous affiliations of Catherine Pope include University of Southampton & University of Leicester.

Analysing qualitative data

Abstract: This is the second in a series of three articles Contrary to popular perception, qualitative research can produce vast amounts of data. These may include verbatim notes or transcribed recordings of interviews or focus groups, jotted notes and more detailed “fieldnotes” of observational research, a diary or chronological account, and the researcher's reflective notes made during the research. These data are not necessarily small scale: transcribing a typical single interview takes several hours and can generate 20–40 pages of single spaced text. Transcripts and notes are the raw data of the research. They provide a descriptive record of the research, but they cannot provide explanations. The researcher has to make sense of the data by sifting and interpreting them. #### Summary points Qualitative research produces large amounts of textual data in the form of transcripts and observational fieldnotes The systematic and rigorous preparation and analysis of these data is time consuming and labour intensive Data analysis often takes place alongside data collection to allow questions to be refined and new avenues of inquiry to develop Textual data are typically explored inductively using content analysis to generate categories and explanations; software packages can help with analysis but should not be viewed as short cuts to rigorous and systematic analysis High quality analysis of qualitative data depends on the skill, vision, and integrity of the researcher; it should not be left to the novice In much qualitative research the analytical process begins during data collection as the data already gathered are analysed and shape the ongoing data collection. This sequential analysis1 or interim analysis2 has the advantage of allowing the researcher to go back and refine questions, develop hypotheses, and pursue emerging avenues of inquiry in further depth. Crucially, it also enables the researcher to look for deviant or negative cases; that is, …

Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research

Abstract: This is the first in a series of three articles In the past decade, qualitative methods have become more commonplace in areas such as health services research and health technology assessment, and there has been a corresponding rise in the reporting of qualitative research studies in medical and related journals.1 Interest in these methods and their wider exposure in health research has led to necessary scrutiny of qualitative research. Researchers from other traditions are increasingly concerned to understand qualitative methods and, most importantly, to examine the claims researchers make about the findings obtained from these methods. The status of all forms of research depends on the quality of the methods used. In qualitative research, concern about assessing quality has manifested itself recently in the proliferation of guidelines for doing and judging qualitative work.2–5 Users and funders of research have had an important role in developing these guidelines as they become increasingly familiar with qualitative methods, but require some means of assessing their quality and of distinguishing “good” and “poor” quality research. However, the issue of “quality” in qualitative research is part of a much larger and contested debate about the nature of the knowledge produced by qualitative research, whether its quality can legitimately be judged, and, if so, how. This paper cannot do full justice to this wider epistemological debate. Rather it outlines two views of how qualitative methods might be judged and argues that qualitative research can be assessed according to two broad criteria: validity and relevance. #### Summary points Qualitative methods are now widely used and increasingly accepted in health research, but quality in qualitative research is a mystery to many health services researchers There is considerable debate over the nature of the knowledge produced by such methods and how such research should be judged Antirealists argue …

Rigour and qualitative research.

Abstract: Various strategies are available within qualitative research to protect against bias and enhance the reliability of findings This paper gives examples of the principal approaches and summarises them into a methodological checklist to help readers of reports of qualitative projects to assess the quality of the research In the health field--with its strong tradition of biomedical research using conventional, quantitative, and often experimental methods--qualitative research is often criticised for lacking scientific rigour To label an approach “unscientific” is peculiarly damning in an era when scientific knowledge is generally regarded as the highest form of knowing The most commonly heard criticisms are, firstly, that qualitative research is merely an assembly of anecdote and personal impressions, strongly subject to researcher bias; secondly, it is argued that qualiative research lacks reproducibility--the research is so personal to the researcher that there is no guarantee that a different researcher would not come to radically different conclusions; and, finally, qualitative research is criticised for lacking generalisability It is said that qualitative methods tend to generate large amounts of detailed information about a small number of settings The pervasive assumption underlying all these criticisms is that quantitative and qualitative approaches are fundamentally different in their ability to ensure the validity and reliability of their findings This distinction, however, is more one of degree than of type The problem of the relation of a piece of research to some presumed underlying “truth” applies to the conduct of any form of social research “One of the greatest methodological fallacies of the last half century in social research is the belief that science is a particular set of techniques; it is, rather, a state of mind, or attitude, and the organisational conditions which allow that attitude to be expressed”1 In quantitative data analysis it is possible to generate statistical …

Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research.

Abstract: Qualitative research methods have a long history in the social sciences and deserve to be an essential component in health and health services research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to research tend to be portrayed as antithetical; the aim of this series of papers is to show the value of a range of qualitative techniques and how they can complement quantitative research. Medical advances, increasing specialisation, rising patient expectations, and the sheer size and diversity of health service provision mean that today's health professionals work in an increasingly complex arena. The wide range of research questions generated by this complexity has encouraged the search for new ways of conducting research. The rapid expansion of research on and about health and health services, and the relatively recent demarcation of a distinct field of “health services research” depend heavily on doctors and other health professionals being investigators, participants, and peer reviewers. Yet some of the most important questions in health services concern the organisation and culture of those who provide health care, such as why the findings of randomised controlled trials are often difficult to apply in day to day clinical practice. The social science methods appropriate to studying such phenomena are very different from the methods familiar to many health professionals. Although the more qualitative approaches found in certain of the social sciences may seem alien alongside the experimental, quantitative methods used in clinical and biomedical research, they should be an essential component of health services research--not just because they enable us to access areas not amenable to quantitative research, such as lay and professional health beliefs, but also because qualitative description is a prerequisite of good quantitative research, particularly in areas that have received little previous investigation. A good example of this is the study of the social consequences of the …

Qualitative research in health care

Abstract: This fully revised and updated edition of Qualitative Research in Health Care offers a clear and accessible introduction to conducting and interpreting qualitative research, incorporating new examples, references and chapters relevant for a comprehensive introduction to the subject. New chapters and references include: • Synthesising qualitative research • Secondary analysis of primary data • Ethical issues • Mixed research methods and integrating qualitative with quantitative techniques • Consensus and other methods for eliciting public and professional views and preferences • Conversation analysis

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups

Abstract: Background. Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. Objective. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (indepth interviews and focus groups). Methods. We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Results. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Conclusions. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

Abstract: This paper focuses on scoping studies, an approach to reviewing the literature which to date has received little attention in the research methods literature. We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems. Where appropriate, our approach to scoping the field is contrasted with the procedures followed in systematic reviews. We emphasize how including a consultation exercise in this sort of study may enhance the results, making them more useful to policy makers, practitioners and service users. Finally, we consider the advantages and limitations of the approach and suggest that a wider debate is called for about the role of the scoping study in relation to other types of literature reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Abstract: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.