Qualitative Health Research: Challenges in Writing and Publishing
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In health, the process of scientific communication for qualitative research involves multiple obstacles: (A) financial barriers due to high article processing costs that are not covered by institutions, forcing researchers to resort to personal funds or grants; (B) some journals may prefer quantitative studies or not accept qualitative ones, which limits the options; (C) peer review may be more rigorous, involving experts in social sciences, which adds another layer of complexity.
The authors summarize the main challenges and provide recommendations for successful writing and publication. The following are required: adapting technical language to an audience accustomed to quantitative approaches; synthesizing to meet word count restrictions (a long and difficult process); and carefully selecting data and citations to include. The proper balance between theory and findings ensures the preservation of the depth and richness that defines the qualitative approach.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Pérez-Rodríguez M, Palacios-Cruz L, Rivas-Ruiz R, et al. Investigación clínica XXIV. Del juicio clínico a la ética en la investigación en humanos. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2014;52(6):666-672.
Kilgallon JL, Khanna S, Dey T, et al. Open(ing) access: top health publication availability to researchers in low- and middle-income countries. Ann Glob Health. 2023;89(1):40. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3904. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3904
Peh WC, Ng KH. Basic structure and types of scientific papers. Singapore Med J. 2008;49(7):522-525.
O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
Castleberry A, Nolen A. Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018;10(6):807-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019
Burnard P. Writing a qualitative research report. Accid Emerg Nurs. 2004;12(3):176-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaen.2003.11.006. . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaen.2003.11.006
Sant M. WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): qualitative research and evidence based practice: implications and contributions. Early Hum Dev. 2019;133:37-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2019.03.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2019.03.009
O'Sullivan TA, Jefferson CG. A review of strategies for enhancing clarity and reader accessibility of qualitative research results. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020;84(1):7124. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7124
Grande-Ratti MF, Perez-Manelli RY, Herrera AG, et al. Investigación-acción participativa sobre percepciones, preocupaciones y necesidades de los profesionales de salud en una central de emergencias de Argentina. Arch Prev Riesgos Labor. 2022;25(3):242-258. https://doi.org/10.12961/aprl.2022.25.03.02. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12961/aprl.2022.25.03.02
Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012 Oct;22(10):1435-1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, et al.. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:579. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;24(1):120-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
Johnson AC, Mays D, Hawkins KB, et al. A qualitative study of adolescent perceptions of electronic cigarettes and their marketing: implications for prevention and policy. Child Health Care. 2017;46(4):379-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/02739615.2016.1227937. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02739615.2016.1227937
Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1):S31-S34. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18
Dossett LA, Kaji AH, Cochran A. SRQR and COREQ reporting guidelines for qualitative studies. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(9):875-876. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0525 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0525