Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health

Introduction: <br/>The credibility of qualitative research has long been debated, with critics emphasizing the lack of rigor and the challenges of demonstrating it. In qualitative research, rigor encompasses explicit, detailed descriptions of various research stages, including problem framing, study design, data collection, analysis, and reporting. The diversity inherent in qualitative research, originating from various beliefs and paradigms, challenges establishing universal guidelines for determining its rigor. Additionally, researchers' often unrecorded thought processes in qualitative studies further complicate the assessment of research quality.<br/><br/>Methods:<br/>To address these concerns, this article builds on the TACT framework, which was developed to teach postgraduate students and those new to qualitative research to identify and apply rigorous principles and indicators in qualitative research. The research reported in this article focuses on creating a scale designed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the TACT framework. This involves analyzing the stability of its dimensions and understanding its effectiveness as a tool for teaching and research.<br/><br/>Results: <br/>The study's findings indicate that the TACT framework, when assessed through the newly developed scale, exhibits stable dimensions consistent with rigorous qualitative research principles. The framework effectively guides postgraduate students and new researchers in assessing the rigor of qualitative research processes and outcomes.<br/><br/>Discussion:<br/>The application of the TACT framework and its evaluation scale reveals several insights. Firstly, it demonstrates the framework's utility in bridging the gap in pedagogical tools for teaching rigor in qualitative research methods. Secondly, it highlights the framework's potential in providing a structured approach to undertaking qualitative research, which is essential given this field's diverse methodologies and paradigms. However, the TACT framework remains a guide to enhancing rigor in qualitative research throughout all the various phases but by no means a measure of rigor.<br/><br/>Conclusion:<br/>In conclusion, the TACT framework and its accompanying evaluative scale represent significant steps toward standardizing and enhancing the rigor of qualitative research, particularly for postgraduate students and early career researchers. While it does not solve all challenges associated with obtaining and demonstrating rigor in qualitative research, it provides a valuable tool for assessing and ensuring research quality, thereby addressing some of the longstanding criticisms of the quality of research obtained through qualitative methods.

The purpose of this focused issue is to advance understanding of qualitative research methods in the international business context. Debates on qualitative research methods in the key international business (IB) journals have been rare. There has been no focused issue on this topic previously, either in mir or in other journals in the field, making this a 'special' issue. During the process of editing a recent handbook on qualitative research methods (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004), we realized that while this collection covered many topics, often for the first time in the IB field, there were many others still outstanding. There was thus scope for continuing a dialogue about qualitative methods in the IB research community. The challenge of making qualitative research count in the quantitative world of IB remains. Qualitative research is difficult to define, since the term encompasses many different research traditions, research strategies and methods for data collection and analysis (Prasad 2005). A typical definition is that everything non-numerical is qualitative research (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004, p. 19). However, even this very simplistic definition soon breaks down, since research strategies which are typically considered to be qualitative, such as case studies, can combine numerical with non-numerical data (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki/Nummela 2004). There is also no clear divide between qualitative and quantitative research in terms of research traditions, with much qualitative research in management and IB sharing the positivist assumptions of quantitative research (Prasad/Prasad 2002). This focused issue is not about reporting the empirical findings of IB studies applying qualitative methods; rather it is about the process of undertaking qualitative research in the IB field. Of course, there is a large volume of literature on qualitative research methods already. However, we would argue that the IB context warrants special treatment. As the authors of this focused issue discuss, the distinctiveness of the field stems from its multiple linguistic and cultural settings; organizational complexity; and its intellectual roots in post-War academic institutions in the USA. These issues receive little treatment in general texts on qualitative methodology. There has been some methodological debate in previous issues of mir. Earlier articles in mircan be grouped into three categories: first, reviews of existing methodological practices in IB publications (e.g., Cavusgil/Das 1997, Nasif et al. 1991); second, proposals for new quantitative techniques (e.g., the use of key informants in cross-cultural studies, as proposed by Lenartowicz and Roth 2004 and a linguistic-based measure of cultural distance as developed by West and Graham 2004); and third, calls for new methodological approaches (Boddewyn/Iyer 1999). The absence of qualitative research methods in this debate perhaps reflects the limited amount of empirical qualitative research published in this journal. A recent analysis of mir issues between 1990 and 1999 revealed that only 5 percent of articles published in this period used qualitative methods (Welch/Welch 2004). This focused issue is therefore a response to those, such as Boddewyn and Iyer (1999) in this journal, who have called for alternatives to surveys and secondary data analysis. This focused issue attracted 39 submissions from more than 15 countries. Given that there have been limited outlets for methodological articles in IB, this is a considerable number. It perhaps suggests a level of interest to which IB journals have not responded to date. Of the total number of submissions, 11 were selected for review. On the basis of reviewers' comments, six of these papers were ultimately rejected. The final five papers underwent two and, in some cases, up to four rounds of revisions. In selecting the articles, we used the following criteria: appropriateness of the topic for the focused issue; demonstrated knowledge of IB and methodological literature; quality of argument; originality and innovativeness of the contribution to IB methodology; organization and clarity of the paper; and potential application to research practice in IB. …

&lt;div class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;p&gt;I am honored for being an alumnus of KEMC, and am delighted to write this editorial for the Annals. I have, ever since done my research and taught qualitative methods, felt that clinical methods are quite akin to qualitative research. Then, why only few clinical researchers use qualitative methods? A witness to this assumption is the research published in the Annals. In this treatise, I try to identify some parallels between the two types of methods and argue for the clinicians to invest in learning qualitative research methods to practice clinical methods well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; Qualitative research is to identify and interpret issues from the perspective of participants, their experience of: illness or disability, using health service, and to appreciate the meanings they give to the behaviour, events or objects in the context of their social and cultural norms. In this type of research, the emphasis is on exploring the associations and understanding the phenomenon in its holism; and not, like in quantitative research, from an outsider’s perspective and for certain specific aspects.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; It requires participants with specific characteristics, selected purposely that can best inform the research topic. More participants, identified inductively during data collection, are added to develop full and multiple perspectives about the cases.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; No preset data collection tool is used, instead qualitative researcher guided by a research question acts as an instrument, since the line of enquiry he changes during data collection as new understanding is gained and/or the situation changes.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; The data for research is derived from the observation, interviews or verbal interactions, focus group discussions, document reviews, life histories etc. and the researcher asks why, how and under what circumstances things occur; and not just what, where and when. It is recorded in words or pictures and log book is used to record notes arising from interviews, observations, extracts from documents etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; In health care settings patients are the subjects for clinical methods. The clinician, even prior to any verbal communication, observes the patient, e.g. for his gait and appearance. If in a bed or examination couch, his posture could give some clue to the illness. Inspection, a clinical method, is like systematic observation, which is qualitative method, should be holistic. In my third year during bedside teaching, Professor (late) Rashid Ahmed Qureshi said, &lt;em&gt;“patient has come to you as a whole and not his stomach in a tray”&lt;/em&gt;, when a student straight went to examine abdomen of a patient with acute abdomen. History taking, another clinical method, is like conducting semi structured in depth interview – a qualitative research method. In both disciplines, we are told, &lt;em&gt;“not to ask leading, but follow up and probing questions”; &lt;/em&gt;and Professor (late) Alamgir Khan, while teaching clinical methods, would add, &lt;em&gt;“if a good history is taken, you will establish diagnosis in over 65% of cases”. &lt;/em&gt;Likewise, as part of history taking, documents related to patient’s illness history and treatment are reviewed similar to document review in qualitative research.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; The two approaches however differ in how the data is analysed. In clinical practice, diagnosis is established based on the pathophysiological knowledge or patient’s clinical condition is discussed in clinicopathological conference.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; On the other hand, qualitative research employs meaning based data analysis, whereby the qualitative data is transformed into some form of explanation, understanding or interpretation of people and situation that is investigated.&lt;sup&gt;5,6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; In conclusion, the history, the observation and the review of document related to patient are since obtainned using qualitative methods, the clinician trained in these methods could not only conduct these methods well but also interpret the data to identify and detect obstacles to the change in clinical condition and the reasons why improvement does or does not occur.&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Finally, while it is heartening that research forums are organised in the institutions affiliated with KEMU, in order the research is richer, the researchers’ skills in qualitative research methods should be built.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;

Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials

Attention to rigour, from the identification of the problem to the dissemination of the findings, is essential in all qualitative research. In this paper, research carried out in Ghana in 1999 is used to highlight methodological issues in relation to rigour in international qualitative nursing research. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature in relation to rigour in qualitative research, highlight the methodological decisions enhancing rigour during this research project, and describe the criteria used to assess rigour during the research process. A participatory action research design was used to explore the cultural, social, economic, and political factors that influenced Ghanaian women's vulnerability to HIV infection. Collaboration with participants and partnerships with key professionals were integral to the design of the study. Participatory action research provided a flexible, socially, and culturally adaptable framework to guide this international research project. Prior to the initiation of international research it was essential to establish the relevance and feasibility of the proposed project. This international research project posed additional methodological challenges to the establishment of rigour. Patience, flexibility and sensitivity were required of the researcher to overcome these challenges. Collaboration with participants and with culture-specific 'experts' may be key to culturally competent scholarship, particularly in unfamiliar settings.

Children’s mental health services research is both challenged and enriched by the complex environment of services and supports that exist for children and their families. It is a context in which the structures and processes that define children’s mental health are diffused across multiple sectors and the pathways to care are unclear, unavailable, and often inappropriate for the children and families most in need of services and support. 1,2 This context presents a challenging research environment because it requires the development of knowledge and understanding within diffused service settings, across multiple and often multifaceted funding and service structures, and in collaboration with multiple stakeholders and an array of public and private agencies. The complexity of the research environment in which children’s mental health research is conducted creates methodological challenges that make it difficult for researchers to study phenomena objectively and independently of the natural service delivery settings. How do we understand the functioning of children’s service systems when they are composed of so many individual and dynamic parts? How do we understand the individual components of systems when we cannot isolate them from their multiple influences and interconnections? Either way, this makes for a research environment in which there are no clear starting points, it is difficult to isolate an intervention or create a control group, and researchers cannot assume that any variables are truly independent. Yet, these issues are faced daily in children’s mental health services research. This complex research environment also offers advantages. It is rich in opportunities to build knowledge that is based on experience and context, to build evidence of what works, and provide understanding of how successful service delivery models can be adapted to meet local needs. This special issue of the Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research (JBHS&R) on qualitative methods explores that opportunity. The goal of this special issue is to examine the process of conducting research in the real-world settings of children’s mental health and to learn more about those settings from the people who are part of them. The use of qualitative methods to build the knowledge base in children’s mental health services research is growing. Qualitative research methods are valued in developing knowledge through experience and context, in understanding multiple perspectives on an issue or topic, and in understanding the complexity in which phenomena exist. 3–5 Because child-serving environments

Thoughts on the Conduct and Dissemination of Qualitative Research

Background. The use of qualitative research (QR) methods is recommended as good practice in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). This study investigated the use and reporting of QR to inform the design and/or interpretation of healthcare-related DCEs and explored the perceived usefulness of such methods. Methods. DCEs were identified from a systematic search of the MEDLINE database. Studies were classified by the quantity of QR reported (none, basic, or extensive). Authors (n = 91) of papers reporting the use of QR were invited to complete an online survey eliciting their views about using the methods. Results. A total of 254 healthcare DCEs were included in the review; of these, 111 (44%) did not report using any qualitative methods; 114 (45%) reported “basic” information; and 29 (11%) reported or cited “extensive” use of qualitative methods. Studies reporting the use of qualitative methods used them to select attributes and/or levels (n = 95; 66%) and/or pilot the DCE survey (n = 26; 18%). Popular qualitative methods included focus groups (n = 63; 44%) and interviews (n = 109; 76%). Forty-four studies (31%) reported the analytical approach, with content (n = 10; 7%) and framework analysis (n = 5; 4%) most commonly reported. The survey identified that all responding authors (n = 50; 100%) found that qualitative methods added value to their DCE study, but many (n = 22; 44%) reported that journals were uninterested in the reporting of QR results. Conclusions. Despite recommendations that QR methods be used alongside DCEs, the use of QR methods is not consistently reported. The lack of reporting risks the inference that QR methods are of little use in DCE research, contradicting practitioners’ assessments. Explicit guidelines would enable more clarity and consistency in reporting, and journals should facilitate such reporting via online supplementary materials.

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Cross-Cultural Psychology

In the current era of artificial intelligence, large language models such as ChatGPT and BARD are being increasingly used for various applications, such as language translation, text generation, and human-like conversation. The fact that these models consist of large amounts of data, including many different opinions and perspectives, could introduce the possibility of a new qualitative research approach: Due to the probabilistic character of their answers, “interviewing” these large language models could give insights into public opinions in a way that otherwise only interviews with large groups of subjects could deliver. However, it is not yet clear if qualitative content analysis research methods can be applied to interviews with these models. Evaluating the applicability of qualitative research methods to interviews with large language models could foster our understanding of their abilities and limitations. In this paper, we examine the applicability of qualitative content analysis research methods to interviews with ChatGPT in English, ChatGPT in German, and BARD in English on the relevance of computer science in K-12 education, which was used as an exemplary topic. We found that the answers produced by these models strongly depended on the provided context, and the same model could produce heavily differing results for the same questions. From these results and the insights throughout the process, we formulated guidelines for conducting and analyzing interviews with large language models. Our findings suggest that qualitative content analysis research methods can indeed be applied to interviews with large language models, but with careful consideration of contextual factors that may affect the responses produced by these models. The guidelines we provide can aid researchers and practitioners in conducting more nuanced and insightful interviews with large language models. From an overall view of our results, we generally do not recommend using interviews with large language models for research purposes, due to their highly unpredictable results. However, we suggest using these models as exploration tools for gaining different perspectives on research topics and for testing interview guidelines before conducting real-world interviews.

Introduction PART ONE: CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH There's More to Dying Than Death: Qualitative Research on the End-of-Life - Stefan Timmermans Healer-Patient Interaction: New Mediations in Clinical Relationships - Arthur W. Frank, Michael K. Corman, Jessica A. Gish and Paul Lawton Qualitative Contributions to the Study of Health Professions and Their Work - Johanne Collin Why Use Qualitative Methods to Study Health-Care Organizations? Insights from Multilevel Case Studies - Carol A. Caronna How Country Matters: Studying Health Policy in a Comparative Perspective - Sirpa Wrede Exploring Social Inequalities in Health: The Importance of Thinking Qualitatively - Gareth Williams and Eva Elliott PART TWO: THEORY Theory Matters in Qualitative Health Research - Mita Giacomini Ethnographic Approaches to Health and Development Research: The Contributions of Anthropology - Rebecca Prentice What Is Grounded Theory and Where Does It Come from? - Dorothy Pawluch and Elena Neiterman Qualitative Methods from Psychology - Helen Malson Conversation Analysis and Ethnomethodology: The Centrality of Interaction - Timothy Halkowski and Virginia Teas Gill Phenomenology - Carol L. McWilliam Studying Organizations: The Revival of Institutionalism - Karen Staniland History and Social Change in Health and Medicine - Claire Hooker PART THREE: COLLECTING AND ANALYZING DATA Qualitative Research Review and Synthesis - Jennie Popay and Sara Mallinson Qualitative Interviewing Techniques and Styles - Susan E. Kelly Focus Groups - Rosaline S. Barbour Fieldwork and Participant Observation - Davina Allen Video-Based Conversation Analysis - Ruth Parry Practising Discourse Analysis in Healthcare Settings - Srikant Sarangi Documents in Health Research - Lindsay Prior Participatory Action Research: Theoretical Perspectives on the Challenges of Researching Action - Louise Potvin, Sherri L. Bisset and Leah Walz Qualitative Research in Programme Evaluation - Isobel MacPherson and Linda McKie Auto-Ethnography: Making Sense of Personal Illness Journeys - Elizabeth Ettore Institutional Ethnography - Marie L. Campbell Visual Methods for Collecting and Analysing Data - Susan E. Bell Keyword Analysis: A New Tool for Qualitative Research - Clive Seale and Jonathan Charteris-Black PART FOUR: ISSUES IN QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH Recognizing Quality in Qualitative Research - Kath M. Melia Mixed Methods Involving Qualitative Research - Alicia O'Cathain A Practical Guide to Research Ethics - Laura Stark and Adam Hedgecoe Using Qualitative Research Methods to Inform Health Policy: The Case of Public Deliberation - Julia Abelson Cross National Qualitative Health Research - Carine Vassy and Richard Keller PART FIVE: APPLYING QUALITATIVE METHODS Researching Reproduction Qualitatively: Intersections of Personal and Political - Kereen Reiger and Pranee Liamputtong Understanding the Shaping, Incorporation and Co-Ordination of Health Technologies through Qualitative Research - Tiago Moreira and Tim Rapley Transgressive Pleasures: Undertaking Qualitative Research in the Radsex Domain - Dave Holmes, Patrick O'Byrne and Denise Gastaldo The Challenges and Opportunities of Qualitative Health Research with Children - Ilina Singh and Sinead Keenan The Dilemmas of Advocacy: The Paradox of Giving in Disability Research - Ruth Pinder Qualitative Approaches for Studying Environmental Health - Phil Brown

Oncology has made significant advances in standardizing how clinical research is conducted and reported. The advancement of such research that improves oncology practice requires an expansion of not only our research questions but also the research methods we deploy to address them. In particular, there is increasing recognition of the value of qualitative research methods to develop more comprehensive understandings of phenomena of interest and to describe and explain underlying motivations and potential causes of specific outcomes. However, qualitative researchers in oncology have lacked guidance to produce and evaluate methodologically rigorous qualitative publications. In this review, we highlight characteristics of high-quality, methodologically rigorous reports of qualitative research, provide criteria for readers and reviewers to appraise such publications critically, and proffer guidance for preparing publications for submission to Journal of Oncology Practice. Namely, the quality of qualitative research in oncology practice is best assessed according to key domains that include fitness of purpose, theoretical framework, methodological rigor, ethical concerns, analytic comprehensives, and the dissemination/application of findings. In particular, determinations of rigor in qualitative research in oncology practice should consider definitions of the appropriateness of qualitative methods for the research objectives against the setting of current literature, use of an appropriate theoretical framework, inclusion of a rigorous and innovative measurement plan, application of appropriate analytic techniques, and clear explanation and dissemination of the research findings.

PurposeThe central purpose of the research presented in this paper is to synthesize the current state of the field in qualitative methods in international organizational change research and to provide a call to researchers to use this type of methodology more frequently. The intent is to provide readers with an overview of how and when qualitative research methods should be used for investigating important theoretical and empirical questions in management research.Design/methodology/approachThe authors developed several working hypotheses based on their own experiences in using an extensive array of qualitative methods in organizational change research. They coupled this with an extensive literature search to understand how these methodologies have been used to date. The findings from the literature search were analysed to uncover where there are gaps in the work and how organizational change and other management scholars can effectively use qualitative methods to advance their understanding of international change phenomena, given the unique questions and situations confronted in various contexts. The authors include an array of examples to show how qualitative research has been used to successfully test theories, uncover new phenomena, find connections between various situations, and provide a deep understanding of contextual influences on organizational change.FindingsThe authors' findings include several examples and ideas of how and when scholars can use qualitative methods to advance understanding of international change phenomena. This provides a much richer, deeper, and more nuanced understanding of many of the phenomena and issues under investigation by employing the more observational and human‐centric techniques available through the use of qualitative methods. Several of the implications of context are only observable through some of the qualitative methods discussed, such as ethnography, case studies, interviews, observations, and their respective analysis methods. Qualitative research can be employed successfully and fruitfully in organization studies' contexts to: help uncover new organizational phenomena; build and test theories of change; and create new methods that researchers can use specifically in international change studies.Originality/valueThe paper is the only one of its kind, bringing a cohesive and focused review of qualitative methods studies in international organizational change research. It provides readers and the field with a menu of ways to effectively use qualitative methods and a description of where and how to bring in these methods to answer questions and uncover new themes that are not effectively dealt with through the use of more commonly employed quantitative methods and analyses.

In 2005, the Qualitative Methods in Psychosocial Health Research Group (QMiPHR) at the University of Nottingham was established as a forum to bring together academics, researchers and practitioners with an interest in qualitative methods. The group has provided colleagues in nutrition, psychiatry, psychology, social work and sociology with a forum for discussion around the question of how qualitative research is able to contribute to understanding mental health and the development of evidence‐based treatment. As a group, we asked ourselves where we stood in relation to the use of qualitative methods in mental health. While we are unified in our view that qualitative research is important and under‐utilised in mental health research, our discussions uncovered a range of views on the underlying philosophical stance of what it means to be a qualitative researcher in mental health. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of our discussions and our view that as qualitative approaches have become more widely accepted they have largely been assimilated within the mainstream ‘medical model’ of research. In this paper, we call for researchers to re‐engage with the philosophical discussion on the role and purpose of qualitative enquiry as it applies to mental health, and for practitioners and decision‐makers to be aware of the implicit values underpinning research.

This review highlights the recent contributions of qualitative research in advancing understanding of dental trauma injury and the barriers and enablers to guide policy for improved patient-centred care including transitional care. It summarises the common approaches and methods used and outlines the key factors that guide the appraisal of qualitative studies. It highlights the importance of the application of qualitative research methods in dental research to generate rich and detailed data to provide explanations and insights into people's experiences, beliefs and attitudes and the complexity of human decision-making and behaviour. In the past decade while there have been a growing number of publications of qualitative studies in dental journals, qualitative studies remain a small percentage of the published dental traumatology research. This may be because of limited understanding about the background, methods and rigour of qualitative research.