Qualitative research methods in medical dissertations: an observational methodological study on prevalence and reporting quality of dissertation abstracts in a German university.
Higher education
Medical dissertation
Methodological study
Qualitative research
Reporting
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 12 2020
10 12 2020
Historique:
received:
01
10
2020
accepted:
02
12
2020
entrez:
11
12
2020
pubmed:
12
12
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Qualitative methods offer a unique contribution to health research. Academic dissertations in the medical field provide an opportunity to explore research practice. Our aim was to assess the use of qualitative methods in dissertations in the medical field. By means of a methodological observational study, an analysis of all academic medical dissertations' abstracts between 1998 and 2018 in a repository databank of a large medical university faculty in Germany was performed. This included MD dissertations (Dr. med. (dent.)) and medical science dissertations (Dr. sc. hum.). All abstracts including "qualitativ*" were screened for studies using qualitative research methods. Data were extracted from abstracts using a category grid considering a) general characteristics (year, language, degree type), b) discipline, c) study design (mixed methods/qualitative only, data conduction, data analysis), d) sample (size and participants) and e) technologies used (data analysis software and recording technology). Thereby reporting quality was assessed. In total, 103 abstracts of medical dissertations between 1998 and 2018 (1.4% of N = 7619) were included, 60 of MD dissertations and 43 of medical sciences dissertations. Half of the abstracts (n = 51) referred to dissertations submitted since 2014. Most abstracts related to public health/hygiene (n = 27) and general practice (n = 26), followed by medical psychology (n = 19). About half of the studies (n = 47) used qualitative research methods exclusively, the other half (n = 56) used mixed methods. For data collection, primarily individual interviews were used (n = 80), followed by group interviews (n = 33) and direct observation (n = 11). Patients (n = 36), physicians (n = 36) and healthcare professionals (n = 17) were the most frequent research participants. Incomplete reporting of participants and data analysis was common (n = 67). Nearly half of the abstracts (n = 46) lacked information on how data was analysed, most of the remaining (n = 43) used some form of content analysis. In summary, 36 abstracts provided all crucial data (participants, sample size,; data collection and analysis method). A small number of academic dissertations used qualitative research methods. About a third of these reported all key aspects of the methods used in the abstracts. Further research on the quality of choice and reporting of methods for qualitative research in dissertations is recommended.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Qualitative methods offer a unique contribution to health research. Academic dissertations in the medical field provide an opportunity to explore research practice. Our aim was to assess the use of qualitative methods in dissertations in the medical field.
METHODS
By means of a methodological observational study, an analysis of all academic medical dissertations' abstracts between 1998 and 2018 in a repository databank of a large medical university faculty in Germany was performed. This included MD dissertations (Dr. med. (dent.)) and medical science dissertations (Dr. sc. hum.). All abstracts including "qualitativ*" were screened for studies using qualitative research methods. Data were extracted from abstracts using a category grid considering a) general characteristics (year, language, degree type), b) discipline, c) study design (mixed methods/qualitative only, data conduction, data analysis), d) sample (size and participants) and e) technologies used (data analysis software and recording technology). Thereby reporting quality was assessed.
RESULTS
In total, 103 abstracts of medical dissertations between 1998 and 2018 (1.4% of N = 7619) were included, 60 of MD dissertations and 43 of medical sciences dissertations. Half of the abstracts (n = 51) referred to dissertations submitted since 2014. Most abstracts related to public health/hygiene (n = 27) and general practice (n = 26), followed by medical psychology (n = 19). About half of the studies (n = 47) used qualitative research methods exclusively, the other half (n = 56) used mixed methods. For data collection, primarily individual interviews were used (n = 80), followed by group interviews (n = 33) and direct observation (n = 11). Patients (n = 36), physicians (n = 36) and healthcare professionals (n = 17) were the most frequent research participants. Incomplete reporting of participants and data analysis was common (n = 67). Nearly half of the abstracts (n = 46) lacked information on how data was analysed, most of the remaining (n = 43) used some form of content analysis. In summary, 36 abstracts provided all crucial data (participants, sample size,; data collection and analysis method).
CONCLUSION
A small number of academic dissertations used qualitative research methods. About a third of these reported all key aspects of the methods used in the abstracts. Further research on the quality of choice and reporting of methods for qualitative research in dissertations is recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33302886
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01186-6
pii: 10.1186/s12874-020-01186-6
pmc: PMC7727214
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
301Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;106:70-79
pubmed: 30336211
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Sep 7;20(1):226
pubmed: 32894052
Fam Pract. 2002 Oct;19(5):557-62
pubmed: 12356712
BMJ. 2017 Aug 17;358:j3751
pubmed: 28819063
PLoS Med. 2008 Jan 22;5(1):e20
pubmed: 18215107
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2017 Dec;35(4):309-312
pubmed: 29094644
Qual Health Res. 2019 Aug;29(10):1483-1496
pubmed: 30628545
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:vii-viii
pubmed: 29673912
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Apr;27(4):321-330
pubmed: 29263139
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Med Educ. 1998 Jul;32(4):439-40
pubmed: 9743810
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Dec;26(12):1015-1021
pubmed: 28971880
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2012 Nov;137(45):2311-5
pubmed: 23111793
Med Educ. 2006 Apr;40(4):314-21
pubmed: 16573666
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Jun 19;18(1):146
pubmed: 29921261
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Sep 11;20(1):230
pubmed: 32917136
Gesundheitswesen. 2002 Jul;64(7):437-42
pubmed: 12119590
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2018 Jul;61(7):857-863
pubmed: 29869707
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Aug 26;20(1):216
pubmed: 32847514
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012 May;109(18):333-7
pubmed: 22679453
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2019 Apr;144(7):489-493
pubmed: 30925606
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):55-63
pubmed: 25560714
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760
pubmed: 26613970
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 21;18(1):148
pubmed: 30463515
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;102:129-133
pubmed: 29793008
J Health Psychol. 1998 Jul;3(3):329-48
pubmed: 22021395
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Sep;101(9):1515-1517
pubmed: 30037663
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Sep 24;17(1):126
pubmed: 30244675
BMJ. 2001 May 5;322(7294):1115-7
pubmed: 11337448