Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Nicholas Mays a Social Policy Branch, The
Treasury, PO Box 3724, Wellington, New Zealand, b Department of Social Medicine,
University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR
Correspondence to:
N Mays nicholas.mays@treasury.govt.nz
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
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
Read all Rapid Responses