A standardized approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 420-428

  Moretti, Francesca ^a   van Vliet, Liesbeth ^b   Bensing, Jozien ^b   Deledda, Giuseppe ^a   Mazzi, Mariangela ^a   Rimondini, Michela ^a   Zimmermann, Christa ^a   Fletcher, Ian ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERONA   (Italy)

^b NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

GULiVer study; Inductive content analysis; Multi centre focus groups; Physicians' communicative behaviors; Users' perspective

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTENT ANALYSIS; EMOTION; GROUP DYNAMICS; HUMAN; INTRARATER RELIABILITY; METHODOLOGY; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; ORIENTING RESPONSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE;

COMMUNICATION; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FOCUS GROUPS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; ITALY; NETHERLANDS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REFERENCE STANDARDS;

EID: 79951947276     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Hsieh H.F., Shannon S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005, 15:1277-1288.
2. Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qual Soc Res 2000;1. [retrieved 05/2009]. http://qualitative-reserach.net/fqs/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm.
3. Elo S., Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008, 62:107-115.
4. Moretti F. GULiVER-travelling into the heart of good doctor-patient communication from a patient perspective. An international multicentre study. PhD Thesis, University of Verona; 2010.
5. Schilling J. On the pragmatics of qualitative assessments. Designing the process for content analysis. Eur J Psychol Assess 2006, 22:28-37.
6. Weber R.P. Basic content analysis 1990, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
7. Graneheim U.H., Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004, 24:105-112.
8. Bradley E.H., Curry L.A., Devers K.J. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res 2007, 42:1758-1772.
9. Zhang Y., Wildemuth B.M. Qualitative analysis of content. Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library 2009, Book News, Portland. B. Wildemuth (Ed.).
10. Busch C, De Maret PS, Flynn T, Kellum R, Le S, Meyers B, et al. Content analysis. Colorado State University, Department of English, ; 2005 [retrieved 05/2010]. http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/content/.
11. Morse J.M., Field P.A. Principles of data analysis. Qualitative research methods for health professionals 1995, SAGE Publications, London. 2nd ed. J.M. Morse, P.A. Field (Eds.).
12. Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G. Naturalistic inquiry 1985, SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
13. Roter D., Larson S. The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient Educ Couns 2002, 46:243-251.
14. Mun Oz Leiva F., Montoro R'Ios F.J., Martinez T.L. Assessment of interjudge reliability in the open-ended questions coding process. Qual Quant 2006, 40:519-537.
15. Hayes A., Krippendorff K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas 2007, 1:77-89.
16. Lemon J. Concord: concordance and reliability. R package version 1.4.9 http://www.r-project.org/.
17. Pfeil U., Zaphiris P. Applying qualitative content analysis to study online support communities. Univ Access Inf Soc 2009, 9:1-16.
18. Lombard M., Snyder-Duch J., Campanella Bracken C. Content analysis in mass communication. Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res 2002, 28:587-604.
19. Salmon P., Mendick N., Young B. Integrative qualitative communication analysis of consultation and patient and practitioner perspectives: towards a theory of authentic caring in clinical relationships. Patient Educ Couns 2010, [Epub ahead of print].
20. Olde Hartman T.C., Hassink-Franke L.J., Lucassen P.L., van Spaendonck K.P., van Weel C. Explanation and relations. How do general practitioners deal with patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms: a focus group study. BMC Fam Pract 2009, 24:68-73.
21. Farin E., Gramm L., Kosiol D. Development of a questionnaire to assess communication preferences of patients with chronic illness. Patient Educ Couns 2011, 82:81-88.
22. Quirk M., Mazor K., Haley H.L., Philbin M., Fischer M., Sullivan K., et al. How patients perceive a doctor's caring attitude. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 72:359-366.
23. McKinstry Do patients wish to be involved in decision making in the consultation. Brit Med J 2000, 321:867-871.
24. Bensing J., Dulmen S., de Haes H. Communicatie tussen patiënten en hun hulpverleners. Gezondheidspsychologie bij patiënten 2010, 109-134. Koninklijke van Gorcum BV/Open Universiteit, Assen, The Netherlands. L. Lechner, I. Mesters, C. Bolman (Eds.).
25. Johansson E.E., Risberg G., Hamberg K. Is qualitative research scientific, or merely relevant? Research-interested primary care and hospital physicians' appraisal of abstracts. Scand J Prim Health Care 2003, 21:10-14.
26. Horsburgh D. Evaluation of qualitative research. J Clin Nurs 2003, 12:307-312.
27. Brod M., Tesler L.E., Christensen T.L. Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res 2009, 18:1263-1278.
28. Whittemore R., Chase S.K., Mandle C.L. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2001, 11:522-537.
29. Mays N., Pope C. Rigour and qualitative research. Brit Med J 1995, 311:109-112.
30. Cohen D.J., Crabtree B.F. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med 2008, 6:331-339.