Nicholas Mays

Bio: Nicholas Mays is an academic researcher from University of London. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Health policy. The author has an hindex of 48, co-authored 303 publications receiving 21699 citations. Previous affiliations of Nicholas Mays include University of Sydney & London School of Economics and Political Science.

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 …

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

Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field

Abstract: Policy-makers and managers have always used a wide range of sources of evidence in making decisions about policy and the organization of services. However, they are under increasing pressure to adopt a more systematic approach to the utilization of the complex evidence base. Decision-makers must address complicated questions about the nature and significance of the problem to be addressed; the nature of proposed interventions; their differential impact; cost-effectiveness; acceptability and so on. This means that Cochrane-style reviews alone are not sufficient. Rather, they require access to syntheses of high-quality evidence that include research and non-research sources, and both qualitative and quantitative research findings. There is no single, agreed framework for synthesizing such diverse forms of evidence and many of the approaches potentially applicable to such an endeavour were devised for either qualitative or quantitative synthesis and/or for analysing primary data. This paper describes the key stages in reviewing and synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence for decision-making and looks at various strategies that could offer a way forward. We identify four basic approaches: narrative (including traditional 'literature reviews' and more methodologically explicit approaches such as 'thematic analysis', 'narrative synthesis', 'realist synthesis' and 'meta-narrative mapping'), qualitative (which convert all available evidence into qualitative form using techniques such as 'meta-ethnography' and 'qualitative cross-case analysis'), quantitative (which convert all evidence into quantitative form using techniques such as 'quantitative case survey' or 'content analysis') and Bayesian meta-analysis and decision analysis (which can convert qualitative evidence such as preferences about different outcomes into quantitative form or 'weights' to use in quantitative synthesis). The choice of approach will be contingent on the aim of the review and nature of the available evidence, and often more than one approach will be required.

Making Health Policy

Abstract: Overview of the book The health policy framework Power and the policy process The state and the private sector in health policy Agenda setting Government and the policy process Interest groups and the policy process Policy implementation Globalizing the policy process Research, evaluation and policy Doing policy analysis Glossary Acronyms

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.

Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria

Abstract: As qualitative research becomes increasingly recognized and valued, it is imperative that it is conducted in a rigorous and methodical manner to yield meaningful and useful results. To be accepted ...

A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data

Abstract: A general inductive approach for analysis of qualitative evaluation data is described. The purposes for using an inductive approach are to (a) condense raw textual data into a brief, summary format; (b) establish clear links between the evaluation or research objectives and the summary findings derived from the raw data; and (c) develop a framework of the underlying structure of expe- riences or processes that are evident in the raw data. The general inductive approach provides an easily used and systematic set of procedures for analyzing qualitative data that can produce reliable and valid findings. Although the general inductive approach is not as strong as some other analytic strategies for theory or model development, it does provide a simple, straightforward approach for deriving findings in the context of focused evaluation questions. Many evaluators are likely to find using a general inductive approach less complicated than using other approaches to qualitative data analysis.