Quality appraisal of published qualitative dental, medical and health ‎researches‏ ‏in Iranian Persian language journals

Document Type: Original Article(s)

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, ‎Zahedan, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Department of ‎Dental Public Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

3 Professor, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of ‎Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Oral and Dental Diseases Research Center AND Kerman Social Determinants on Oral Health ‎Research ‎Center AND ‎Department of Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, ‎Kerman, Iran

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study aimed to determine the rate of published qualitative research in the field of public health including dental researches in Iran and to appraise their quality.METHODS: A total of 165 articles which published in 170 Iranian Medical Journals between years 2000 and 2014 were found eligible to the study. 48 papers were selected randomly. The papers were appraised by two calibrated reviewer using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) appraisal framework for qualitative research.RESULTS: Only 2 studies (about 4%) were on dental topics. About 82% (38-48) studies had sufficient reporting regarding aims, study design, recruitment and data collection, data analysis, finding and implication of research. Only 12 articles (25%) had an adequate discussion of the study limitations. Overall, the assessment showed that 27 papers (about 56%) of studies were well conducted.CONCLUSION: Qualitative methods are underutilized on dentistry topics, and the quality of qualitative research on health topics in medical journals of Iran is mediocre.

Keywords


  1. Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in qualitative evaluation. A framework for assessing research evidence [Report]. London, UK: Government Chief Social Researcher's Office; 2003. p. 5-21.
  2. Higginbottom GM. Sampling issues in qualitative research. Nurse Res 2004; 12(1): 7-19.
  3. Elliott R, Fischer CT, Rennie DL. Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. Br J Clin Psychol 1999; 38 (Pt 3): 215-29.
  4. Gilson L, Hanson K, Sheikh K, Agyepong IA, Ssengooba F, Bennett S. Building the field of health policy and systems research: Social science matters. PLoS Med 2011; 8(8): e1001079.
  5. Masood M, Thaliath ET, Bower EJ, Newton JT. An appraisal of the quality of published qualitative dental research. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011; 39(3): 193-203.
  6. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9: 59.
  7. Popay J, Williams G. Qualitative research and evidence-based healthcare. J R Soc Med 1998; 91(Suppl 35): 32-7.
  8. Treloar C, Champness S, Simpson PL, Higginbotham N. Critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research studies. Indian J Pediatr 2000; 67(5): 347-51.
  9. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19(6): 349-57.
  10. Smith T. Critical appraisal of quantitative and qualitative research literature. The Radiographer 2009; 56(3): 6-10.
  11. Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, Smith JA. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13(3): 223-5.
  12. Carr SM, Lhussier M, Forster N, Geddes L, Deane K, Pennington M, et al. An evidence synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research on component intervention techniques, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity and acceptability of different versions of health-related lifestyle advisor role in improving health. Health Technol Assess 2011; 15(9): iii-284.
  13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appendix I: Methodology checklist: qualitative studies [Online]. [cited 2009]; Available from: URL: http://mande.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2009-Methodology-checklist-qualitative-studies-NICE.pdf
  14. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000; 320(7226): 50-2.
  15. Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ 2001; 322(7294): 1115-7.
  16. Western Michigan University. Evaluation checklists [Online]. [cited 2003]; Available from: URL: https://www.wmich.edu/evaluation/checklists
  17. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar S, Grimmer KA. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004; 4: 22.
  18. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Appendix H: Methodology checklist: qualitative studies [Online]. [cited 2003]; Available from: URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg6b/chapter/appendix-h-methodology-checklist-qualitative-studies
  19. Weintraub JA, Prakash P, Shain SG, Laccabue M, Gansky SA. Mothers' caries increases odds of children's caries. J Dent Res 2010; 89(9): 954-8.
  20. Reynolds J, Kizito J, Ezumah N, Mangesho P, Allen E, Chandler C. Quality assurance of qualitative research: a review of the discourse. Health Res Policy Syst 2011; 9: 43.
  21. Miller WR. Qualitative research findings as evidence: utility in nursing practice. Clin Nurse Spec 2010; 24(4): 191-3.
  22. Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med 2003; 56(4): 671-84.
  23. Lee P. Understanding and critiquing qualitative research papers. Nurs Times 2006; 102(29): 30-2.