There are numerous contested issues in qualitative research, and its findings are difficult to condense. Thus, short, qualitative research abstracts are difficult both to compile and evaluate. The Society for Research in Rehabilitation has produced guidelines that aim to illuminate and inform the development and judging of such abstracts. These draw on an extensive Health Technology Assessment review of qualitative methods in health services research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Society for Research in Rehabilitation (Scientific Panel). Guidance on submission of qualitative research abstracts. Accessed from http://www.srr.org.uk, 2001.
2.
Mays N, Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ2000; 320: 50–52.
3.
Dingwall R, Murphy E, Greatbatch D, Watson P, Parker S. Catching goldfish: Quality in qualitative research. J Health Services Res Policy1998; 3: 167–172.
4.
Seale C, Silverman D. Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. Eur J Public Health1997; 17: 379–384.
5.
Elder N, Miller W. Reading and evaluating qualitative research studies. J Family Pract1995; 41: 279–285.
6.
Gliner J. Reviewing qualitative research: proposed criteria for fairness and rigor. Occup Ther J Res1994; 1478–90.
7.
Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment, NHS R&D HTA Programme, NCCHTA, University of Southampton, Southampton, 1998. And also at: http://www.ncchta.org/fullmono/mon216.pdf
