EGPRN Logo
Go to EGPRN Home Page

Pre-conference Workshop 4

Basics of qualitative research: Concepts & Method

Thursday, 16 October, 09:00 - 12:00

  • Hans Thulesius –  GP,  MD, PhD Professor of general practice at Linnaeus University and Associate Professor at Lund University (Sweeden). Grounded-theory specialist with extensive experience in primary-care research, cancer diagnostics, palliative care, and telemedicine.
  • Alain Mercier – Université Sorbonne Paris Nord (France). GP, MD, PhD, Professor and Head of the Department of General Practice. Co-author of leading textbooks on qualitative health research, with a special focus on mental-health care and chronic-condition management.

In this compact three-hour session participants will explore the essential steps of a qualitative study, considering the constraints imposed by the short timeframe. After a quick refresher on the philosophical underpinnings of qualitative research, attendees will learn how to craft a clear research question and select an appropriate sampling strategy. They will then design a concise interview guide and conduct a brief self-interview in pairs.

Because three hours cannot accommodate a full-scale analysis, the coding segment is intentionally streamlined: We’ll only run a lecture on the basics of coding, and illustrate them with a few concrete examples.

Role of Participants

  • Actively engage in discussions, group work, and role plays.
  • Keep a logbook throughout the session for reflexivity and notes. 
  • Share personal experiences, assumptions, and reflections.
  • Present group work outputs in plenary.
  • Write down any questions to be answered (Keep track to answer remaining questions at the end)

Joining this workshop, you will acquire a solid foundation in qualitative methods, gain practical experience in question formulation and interview design, and obtain a concise, hands-on glimpse of coding that you can expand upon in your own projects.

References 

  1. Endacott R. Clinical research 4: qualitative data collection and analysis. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. avr 2005;21(2):123-7.
  2. Engin M. Research Diary: A Tool for Scaffolding. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. sept 2011;10(3):296-306.
  3. García B, Welford J, Smith B. Using a smartphone app in qualitative research: the good, the bad and the ugly. Qualitative Research. oct 2016;16(5):508-25.
  4. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 19 juill 2000;284(3):357-62.
  5. Huston P, Rowan M. Qualitative studies. Their role in medical research. Can Fam Physician. nov 1998;44:2453-8.
  6. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 29 juill 1995;311(7000):299-302.
  7. Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: Context, research questions and designs. Eur J Gen Pract. déc 2017;23(1):274-9.
  8. Lebeau JP, Cadwallader JS, Vaillant-Roussel H, Pouchain D, Yaouanc V, Aubin-Auger I, et al. General practitioners’ justifications for therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular prevention: an empirically grounded typology. BMJ Open. 13 mai 2016;6(5):e010639.
  9. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research: Observational methods in health care settings. BMJ. 15 juill 1995;311(6998):182-4.
  10. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 1 janv 2000;320(7226):50-2.
  11. Moser A, Korstjens I. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur J Gen Pract. déc 2018;24(1):9-18.
  12. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations. Academic Medicine. sept 2014;89(9):1245-51.
  13. Paley J, Lilford R. Qualitative methods: an alternative view. BMJ. 2011;342:d424.
  14. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 8 janv 2000;320(7227):114-6.
  15. Read SL. Qualitative methods. Competing philosophies? BMJ. 2011;342:d3038.
  16. Reste JYL, Nabbe P, Lazic D, Assenova R, Lingner H, Czachowski S, et al. How do general practitioners recognize the definition of multimorbidity? A European qualitative study. European Journal of General Practice. 2 juill 2016;22(3):159-68.
  17. Sandelowski M, Leeman J. Writing Usable Qualitative Health Research Findings. Qual Health Res. 1 oct 2012;22(10):1404-13.
  18. Sargeant J. Qualitative Research Part II: Participants, Analysis, and Quality Assurance. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 1 mars 2012;4(1):1-3.
  19. Shorten A, Moorley C. Selecting the sample. Evidence-Based Nursing. 1 avr 2014;17(2):32-3.
  20. Stolper E, van Bokhoven M, Houben P, Van Royen P, van de Wiel M, van der Weijden T, et al. The diagnostic role of gut feelings in general practice A focus group study of the concept and its determinants. BMC Family Practice. 18 févr 2009;10(1):17.
  21. Tesch R. Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools. Repr. New York: Falmer Press; 1995. 330 p.
  22. Thomas DR. A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation. 1 juin 2006;27(2):237-46.
  23. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 16 sept 2007;19(6):349-57.
  24. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 27 nov 2012;12:181.
  25. Vasileiou K, Barnett J, Thorpe S, Young T. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol. 21 2018;18(1):148.
  26. Vermeire E, Van Royen P, Griffiths F, Coenen S, Peremans L, Hendrickx K. The critical appraisal of focus group research articles. European Journal of General Practice. janv 2002;8(3):104-8.
  27. Delivering the faecal occult blood test: More instructions than shared decisions. A qualitative study among French GPs: European Journal of General Practice: Vol 19, No 3 [Internet]. [cité 21 juill 2019]. Disponible sur: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/13814788.2013.780162
  28. “I Can’t Find Anything Wrong: It Must Be a Pulmonary Embolism”: Diagnosing Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in Primary Care, a Qualitative Study [Internet]. [cité 21 juill 2019]. Disponible sur: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0098112
  29. Role of intuitive knowledge in the diagnostic reasoning of hospital specialists: a focus group study | BMJ Open [Internet]. [cité 21 juill 2019]. Disponible sur: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/1/e022724