» Articles » PMID: 17161753

A Hierarchy of Evidence for Assessing Qualitative Health Research

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Public Health
Date 2006 Dec 13
PMID 17161753
Citations 119
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to outline explicit criteria for assessing the contribution of qualitative empirical studies in health and medicine, leading to a hierarchy of evidence specific to qualitative methods.

Study Design And Setting: This paper arose from a series of critical appraisal exercises based on recent qualitative research studies in the health literature. We focused on the central methodological procedures of qualitative method (defining a research framework, sampling and data collection, data analysis, and drawing research conclusions) to devise a hierarchy of qualitative research designs, reflecting the reliability of study conclusions for decisions made in health practice and policy.

Results: We describe four levels of a qualitative hierarchy of evidence-for-practice. The least likely studies to produce good evidence-for-practice are single case studies, followed by descriptive studies that may provide helpful lists of quotations but do not offer detailed analysis. More weight is given to conceptual studies that analyze all data according to conceptual themes but may be limited by a lack of diversity in the sample. Generalizable studies using conceptual frameworks to derive an appropriately diversified sample with analysis accounting for all data are considered to provide the best evidence-for-practice. Explicit criteria and illustrative examples are described for each level.

Conclusion: A hierarchy of evidence-for-practice specific to qualitative methods provides a useful guide for the critical appraisal of papers using these methods and for defining the strength of evidence as a basis for decision making and policy generation.

Citing Articles

Advancing occupational therapy scoping reviews: Recommendations to enhance quality and methodological rigour.

Brown T, Gustafsson L, McKinstry C, Robinson L Aust Occup Ther J. 2025; 72(1):e70003.

PMID: 39978961 PMC: 11842175. DOI: 10.1111/1440-1630.70003.


Current Evidence on Raw Meat Diets in Pets: A Natural Symbol, but a Nutritional Controversy.

Lyu Y, Wu C, Li L, Pu J Animals (Basel). 2025; 15(3).

PMID: 39943063 PMC: 11816250. DOI: 10.3390/ani15030293.


An Update on Deaths in the United Kingdom from 'Poppers' (Alkyl Nitrites), with a Particular Focus on 'Swallowing' Fatalities.

Corkery J, Copeland C, Ream S, Streete P, Schifano F J Clin Med. 2025; 14(2).

PMID: 39860433 PMC: 11765549. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14020427.


Assessing the Risks and Cultural Relativity of Diabetes in Black Individuals of African Caribbean Ancestry (ACB) Aged 18-39 Years in Toronto.

Alamgir A, Raghunauth R, Momoh O, Ledwos C Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025; 22(1).

PMID: 39857538 PMC: 11765189. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph22010085.


Complement-mediated hemolytic uremic syndrome associated with postpartum hemorrhage: case series and systematic review of individual participant data.

Gurevich-Shapiro A, Orbach-Zinger S, Leader A, Stemer G, Wiznitzer A, Singer P Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2024; 8(8):102579.

PMID: 39717280 PMC: 11665619. DOI: 10.1016/j.rpth.2024.102579.