Lisa Gibbs1, Michelle Kealy, Karen Willis, Julie Green, Nicky Welch, Jeanne Daly. 1. The McCaughey Centre, VicHealth Centre for Promotion of Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. lgibbs@unimelb.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To highlight the importance of sampling and data collection processes in qualitative interview studies, and to discuss the contribution of these processes to determining the strength of the evidence generated and thereby to decisions for public health practice and policy. APPROACH: This discussion is informed by a hierarchy-of-evidence-for-practice model. The paper provides succinct guidelines for key sampling and data collection considerations in qualitative research involving interview studies. The importance of allowing time for immersion in a given community to become familiar with the context and population is discussed, as well as the practical constraints that sometimes operate against this stage. The role of theory in guiding sample selection is discussed both in terms of identifying likely sources of rich data and in understanding the issues emerging from the data. It is noted that sampling further assists in confirming the developing evidence and also illuminates data that does not seem to fit. The importance of reporting sampling and data collection processes is highlighted clearly to enable others to assess both the strength of the evidence and the broader applications of the findings. CONCLUSION: Sampling and data collection processes are critical to determining the quality of a study and the generalisability of the findings. We argue that these processes should operate within the parameters of the research goal, be guided by emerging theoretical considerations, cover a range of relevant participant perspectives, and be clearly outlined in research reports with an explanation of any research limitations.
OBJECTIVE: To highlight the importance of sampling and data collection processes in qualitative interview studies, and to discuss the contribution of these processes to determining the strength of the evidence generated and thereby to decisions for public health practice and policy. APPROACH: This discussion is informed by a hierarchy-of-evidence-for-practice model. The paper provides succinct guidelines for key sampling and data collection considerations in qualitative research involving interview studies. The importance of allowing time for immersion in a given community to become familiar with the context and population is discussed, as well as the practical constraints that sometimes operate against this stage. The role of theory in guiding sample selection is discussed both in terms of identifying likely sources of rich data and in understanding the issues emerging from the data. It is noted that sampling further assists in confirming the developing evidence and also illuminates data that does not seem to fit. The importance of reporting sampling and data collection processes is highlighted clearly to enable others to assess both the strength of the evidence and the broader applications of the findings. CONCLUSION: Sampling and data collection processes are critical to determining the quality of a study and the generalisability of the findings. We argue that these processes should operate within the parameters of the research goal, be guided by emerging theoretical considerations, cover a range of relevant participant perspectives, and be clearly outlined in research reports with an explanation of any research limitations.
Authors: Elizabeth T Anderson Steeves; Katherine A Johnson; Suzanne L Pollard; Jessica Jones-Smith; Keshia Pollack; Sarah Lindstrom Johnson; Laura Hopkins; Joel Gittelsohn Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Johanna Wilhelmina Maria Aarts; Femke Vennik; Willianne L D M Nelen; Martijn van der Eijk; Bastiaan R Bloem; Marjan J Faber; Jan A M Kremer Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Sarah A Redsell; Philippa Atkinson; Dilip Nathan; A Niroshan Siriwardena; Judy A Swift; Cris Glazebrook Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-11-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: L Natoli; R J Guy; M Shephard; D Whiley; S N Tabrizi; J Ward; D G Regan; S G Badman; D A Anderson; J Kaldor; L Maher Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lisa Natoli; Lisa Maher; Mark Shephard; Belinda Hengel; Annie Tangey; Steven G Badman; James Ward; Rebecca J Guy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lisa Natoli; Rebecca J Guy; Mark Shephard; Louise Causer; Steven G Badman; Belinda Hengel; Annie Tangey; James Ward; Tony Coburn; David Anderson; John Kaldor; Lisa Maher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anna Flego; Jessica Herbert; Lisa Gibbs; Boyd Swinburn; Catherine Keating; Elizabeth Waters; Marj Moodie Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 3.295