การวจยเชงคณภาพ เปนเครองมอสำคญอยางหนงสำหรบทำความเขาใจสงคมและพฤตกรรมมนษย การวจยแบบการสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล กเปนหนงในหลายระเบยบวธการวจยเชงคณภาพทกำลงไดรบความสนใจ และเปนทนยมเพมสงขนเรอยๆ จากนกวชาการ และนกวจยในสาขาสงคมศาสตร และศาสตรอนๆ เชน พฤตกรรมศาสตร สงคมวทยา สาธารณสขศาสตร พยาบาลศาสตร จตวทยาสงคม ศกษาศาสตร รฐศาสตร และสารสนเทศศกษา ดงนน หนงสอเรอง “ConstructingGrounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis” หรอ “การสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล:แนวทางการปฏบตผานการวเคราะหเชงคณภาพ” จะชวยใหผอานมความรความเขาใจถงพฒนาการของปฏบตการวจยแบบสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล ตลอดจนแนวทาง และกระบวนการปฏบตการวจยอยางเปนระบบ จงเปนหนงสอทควรคาแกการอานโดยเฉพาะนกวจยรนใหม เพอเปนแนวทางในการนำความรความเขาใจไประยกตในงานวจยของตน อกทงนกวจยผเชยวชาญสามารถอานเพอขยายมโนทศนดานวจยใหกวางขวางขน

Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis

Recording of presentation introducing narrative analysis, outlining what it is, why it can be a useful approach, how to do it and where to find out more. Presentation given at methods@manchester seminar at University of Manchester on 4 March 2010.

What is Narrative Analysis

/pdf/research-design-qualitative-quantitative-and-mixed-methods-1m92m1x5gg.pdf

Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches

http://library.um.ac.id/free-contents/downloadpdf.php/buku/focus-groups-as-qualitative-research-by-morgan-david-l-11476.pdf

Focus groups as qualitative research / by Morgan, David L.

This handbook presents guidelines for synthesizing findings of qualitative research.After discussing the importance of such synthesis for building knowledge, in the second chapter the authors introduce definitions of and types of qualitative research synthesis.They view the synthesis as a study comprising a series of steps, starting with the formulation of a problem and a statement of purpose. In chapter 3 the authors focus on the steps of retrieving all research reports and determining their relevance to the study domain. In chapter 4 they describe strategies for appraising individual study reports and for conducting a comparative appraisal. Comparative appraisal consists of displaying key elements of the studies included in the synthesis and comparing them in order to determine whether they confirm, extend, refute, or complement each other. In chapter 5 Sandelowski and Barroso discuss issues encountered in appraising the quality of qualitative studies and present a typology of findings that can be used to classify results. In chapters 6 and 7 they describe the process of implementing the two types of qualitative research synthesis, metasummary and metasynthesis. In chapter 8 the authors review strategies for maintaining validity of qualitative research synthesis and in chapter 9 they review content and format for presenting the results of the synthesis. Sandelowski and Barroso are to be commended for addressing a controversial topic, and for refining the types of qualitative research findings and procedures for conducting a synthesis of these findings.They clarify the arguments advanced by proponents and opponents of the qualitative research synthesis, thereby facilitating our understanding of the rationale underlying the two types of synthesis. Conceiving the synthesis as a study that is conducted in steps, similar to those entailed in a metaanalysis, helps us to view the process as a systematic one with a welldefined sequence of steps.The book is structured accordingly, starting with the formulation of a researchable problem, moving on to the conduct of an extensive search of the relevant literature, then to an appraisal and synthesis of findings across studies, and ending with CJNR 2008,Vol. 40 No 3, 179 –180

https://cjnr.archive.mcgill.ca/article/download/2146/2140

Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research

As the movement toward evidence-based health policy continues to emphasize the importance of including patient and public perspectives, syntheses of qualitative health research are becoming more common. In response to the focus on independent assessments of rigor in these knowledge products, over 100 appraisal tools for assessing the quality of qualitative research have been developed. The variety of appraisal tools exhibit diverse methods and purposes, reflecting the lack of consensus as to what constitutes appropriate quality criteria for qualitative research. It is a daunting task for those without deep familiarity of the field to choose the best appraisal tool for their purpose. This article provides a description of the structure, content, and objectives of existing appraisal tools for those wanting to evaluate primary qualitative research for a qualitative evidence synthesis. We then discuss common features of appraisal tools and examine their implications for evidence synthesis.

Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools:

Examine the factors that promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance during pandemics, major epidemics and global outbreaks. A systematic review and thematic analysis of 28 studies on the Influenza A/H1N1 pandemic and the global spread of Ebola Virus Disease. We found seven major factors that promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance: demographic factors influencing vaccination (ethnicity, age, sex, pregnancy, education, and employment), accessibility and cost, personal responsibility and risk perceptions, precautionary measures taken based on the decision to vaccinate, trust in health authorities and vaccines, the safety and efficacy of a new vaccine, and lack of information or vaccine misinformation. An understanding of participant experiences and perspectives toward vaccines from previous pandemics will greatly inform the development of strategies to address the present situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss the impact vaccine hesitancy might have for the introduction and effectiveness of a potential COVID-19 vaccine. In particular, we believe that skepticism toward vaccines can still exist when there are no vaccines available, which is contrary to contemporary conceptualizations of vaccine hesitancy. We recommend conducting further research assessing the relationship between the accessibility and cost of vaccines, and vaccine hesitancy.

/pdf/what-factors-promote-vaccine-hesitancy-or-acceptance-during-a3438f17hz.pdf

What factors promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance during pandemics? A systematic review and thematic analysis.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can be used to accurately detect fetal chromosomal anomalies early in pregnancy by assessing cell-free fetal DNA present in maternal blood. The rapid diffusion of NIPT, as well as the ease and simplicity of the test raises concerns around informed decision-making and the potential for routinization. Introducing NIPT in a way that facilitates informed and autonomous decisions is imperative to the ethical application of this technology. We approach this imperative by systematically reviewing and synthesizing primary qualitative research on women’s experiences with and preferences for informed decision-making around NIPT. We searched multiple bibliographic databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and ISI Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Our review was guided by integrative qualitative meta-synthesis, and we used a staged coding process similar to that of grounded theory to conduct our analysis. Thirty empirical primary qualitative research studies were eligible for inclusion. Women preferred to learn about NIPT from their clinicians, but they expressed dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of information provided during counselling and often sought information from a variety of other sources. Women generally had a good understanding of test characteristics, and the factors of accuracy, physical risk, and test timing were the critical information elements that they used to make informed decisions around NIPT. Women often described NIPT as easy or just another blood test, highlighting threats to informed decision-making such as routinization or a pressure to test. Women’s unique circumstances modulate the information that they value and require most in the context of making an informed decision. Widened availability of trustworthy information about NIPT as well as careful attention to the facilitation of counselling may help facilitate informed decision-making. PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018086261
 .

/pdf/facilitating-informed-choice-about-non-invasive-prenatal-2m3k1p3l3z.pdf

Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of women's experiences.

This is the second article of a three-part series that continues the discussion on the fundamentals of writing research protocols for quantitative, clinical research studies. In this editorial, the author discusses some considerations for including information in a research protocol on the study design and approach of a research study. This series provides a guide for undergraduate researchers interested in publishing their protocol in the Undergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Sciences and Technology (URNCST) Journal.

/pdf/research-fundamentals-study-design-population-and-sample-1k1ipr92hu.pdf

Research Fundamentals: Study Design, Population, and Sample Size

Vaccines are some of the most cost-effective public health interventions for reducing disease burden and mortality However, in recent years, health systems have faced a growing challenge with increasing number of parents who choose not to vaccinate their children This decision has important implications for the health of communities worldwide, and despite a considerable amount of research that reinforces vaccine effectiveness and safety, there is uncertainty surrounding the factors that may encourage vaccine hesitancy in parents In this interpretive review of 34 qualitative studies, we examine the factors that bolster vaccine hesitancy, rejection, and delay, and identify the overlaps and relationships between these factors We depict our findings using the metaphor of a gear train where each gear represents one of seven factors: previous experiences; "natural" and "organic" living; perceptions of other parents; experiences interacting with health care providers; information sources, challenges, and preferences; distrust in health system players; and mandatory vaccine policies

Umair Majid

Papers

Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools:

What factors promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance during pandemics? A systematic review and thematic analysis.

Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of women's experiences.

Research Fundamentals: Study Design, Population, and Sample Size

The Factors That Promote Vaccine Hesitancy, Rejection, or Delay in Parents: