Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Review ArticleReview

Qualitative Research in Rheumatology: An Overview of Methods and Contributions to Practice and Policy

Ayano Kelly, Kathleen Tymms, Kieran Fallon, Daniel Sumpton, Peter Tugwell, David Tunnicliffe and Allison Tong
The Journal of Rheumatology January 2021, 48 (1) 6-15; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.191368
Ayano Kelly
1A. Kelly, MBBS, FRACP, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, and Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, and Canberra Rheumatology, Canberra, and Department of Rheumatology, The Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ayano Kelly
  • For correspondence: Ayano.Kelly@anu.edu.au
Kathleen Tymms
2K. Tymms, MBBS, FRACP, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, and Canberra Rheumatology, and Department of Rheumatology, The Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kieran Fallon
3K. Fallon, FACSEP, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, and Department of Rheumatology, The Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Sumpton
4D. Sumpton, MBBS, FRACP, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, and Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, and Department of Rheumatology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Tugwell
5P. Tugwell, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Peter Tugwell
David Tunnicliffe
6D. Tunnicliffe, PhD, A. Tong, PhD, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, and Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Allison Tong
6D. Tunnicliffe, PhD, A. Tong, PhD, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, and Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Patient-centered care is widely advocated in rheumatology. This involves collaboration among patients, caregivers, and health professionals and is particularly important in chronic rheumatic conditions because the disease and treatment can impair patients’ health and well-being. Qualitative research can systematically generate insights about people’s experiences, beliefs, and attitudes, which patients may not always express in clinical settings. These insights can address complex and challenging areas in rheumatology, such as treatment adherence and transition to adult healthcare services. Despite this, qualitative research comprises 1% of studies published in top-tier rheumatology journals. A better understanding about the effect and role, methods, and rigor of qualitative research is needed. This overview highlights the recent contributions of qualitative research in rheumatology, summarizes the common approaches and methods used, and outlines the key principles to guide appraisal of qualitative studies.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • focus groups
  • qualitative research
  • research design
  • research methodology
  • semistructured interviews

The need for patient-centered care is widely recognized in rheumatology, with shared decision-making being one of the cornerstone attributes in this paradigm1,2,3. Clinical guidelines for rheumatic conditions have consistently emphasized that decision-making should explicitly consider the patients’ values, preferences, and needs3,4,5. In addition, the World Health Organization recommends that qualitative evidence is incorporated into the development of guidelines6. This is particularly relevant because the interventions for patients with rheumatic conditions may have associated risks of complications and side effects, and other effects on the social, work-related, and personal facets of their lives. Evidence on patients’ experiences, attitudes, and goals is thus needed to inform practice and policy.

Qualitative research methods can generate rich and detailed data to provide explanations and insights into the complexity of human behavior and decision-making7. Qualitative methods are used to generate hypotheses and address questions of “how” and “why”; whereas quantitative research methods are usually designed to test a hypothesis, and to answer questions of “how much” or “how often”8,9. Over the past decade, there appears to have been a growing number of publications of qualitative studies in biomedical journals across medical specialties, including rheumatology10,11,12,13 (Supplementary Table 1, available with the online version of this article). However, qualitative studies remain a small percentage of the published rheumatology research.

Between January 2015 to December 2019, qualitative studies comprised only 94 (1%) of the 8484 original research articles published in the 10 rheumatology journals with the highest impact factors (Journal Citation Reports, Social Science Edition, Clarivate Analytics) in 2018 (Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Arthritis & Rheumatology, Rheumatology, Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, Arthritis Care & Research, Arthritis Research & Therapy, Current Rheumatology Reports, and The Journal of Rheumatology. Only journals that publish original research articles have been listed; Supplementary Table 1, available with the online version of this article). In part, this may be because health professionals and researchers have little training and experience in conducting and appraising qualitative research methods or are uncertain as to how it can inform or affect practice and policy14.

This overview will highlight recent contributions of qualitative research to care and policy in rheumatology and introduce qualitative research, including key approaches and appraisal of qualitative work.

Contributions of qualitative research to clinical practice and policy

In this section, we summarize the insights that qualitative studies have provided in clinically relevant areas affecting multiple rheumatic conditions in adult and pediatric rheumatology: medication adherence, transition from pediatric to adult care, and the experience and management of fatigue. We have also summarized additional, selected qualitative studies in selected rheumatic conditions [gout, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus] that are commonly managed by health professionals in rheumatology (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Selected examples of qualitative studies in rheumatology.

Medication adherence. Nonadherence to medications is common across many rheumatic conditions with consequent effects on patient morbidity and even mortality15,16,17,18. Qualitative studies have been conducted in patients with rheumatic conditions to elucidate their experiences of and attitudes toward medications19,20. For example, patients with inflammatory arthritis are motivated to take disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in an attempt to return to their normal life and avoid future disability, though many often view their medications as a “necessary evil” with “toxic” side effects and uncertain efficacy19,21,22. Medications may be perceived as a confronting reminder of their sickness and a threat to their health and well-being19,21,23. For this reason, patients may decide not to take medications in order to regain control of their health and minimize lifestyle intrusions23,24. Patients can also be overwhelmed by the burden of deciphering multiple and sometimes conflicting sources of information in order to make informed decisions about medications19,23,25,26. Studies have suggested that physicians can mitigate fears by facilitating shared decision-making and providing a supportive environment that allows patients to voice their concerns about their medications19,26,27,28.

Transition from pediatric to adult healthcare. As young patients with rheumatic conditions transition from pediatric to adult care, they must establish relationships with new clinicians, and navigate different healthcare facilities and an adult model of care during a turbulent time of physical, social, vocational, and psychological growth and change29,30. This is particularly relevant in rheumatology as many young people with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases continue to have disease activity or significant sequelae in adult life31. Qualitative studies in adolescents transitioning to adult rheumatology care highlight the challenges they face. They describe feeling abandoned and ill-prepared to face a healthcare setting that is perceived to be sterile, depersonalized, and uninviting32,33,34. The transition process could be isolating if healthcare staff in the adult clinic focused only on medical aspects of care, with little consideration for psychosocial effects of the condition32,35,36. Patients could feel overwhelmed by the expectations to attend clinic appointments without their parents or to hand over their own clinical information to new adult providers34. In contrast, they felt more confident and secure when given an opportunity to become familiar with the adult physician and clinic, if information on the patient’s knowledge and understanding of their disease was clarified, documented, and handed over, and if they have the support of a specialist nurse in an adult clinic30,35. Patients undergoing transition to adult care appreciated a flexible approach that was tailored to their willingness and ability to take on more responsibilities and involvement in adult care34,35. Qualitative research has been used to help design and evaluate a transitional care program that incorporates the need for gradual and prepared transfer, regulated parental involvement, and an adapted setting for adolescents34,37. Qualitative studies demonstrate the importance of transitional care programs to include familiarization, joint clinics, nursing support, adequate transfer of information, and the provision of care that addresses the psychosocial priorities of young people.

Experience and management of fatigue. Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom, and is of high priority to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)38. Previously, it was rarely addressed in clinical practice as a treatment target in long-term care of patients with RA39. However, in the last few years, rheumatologists have become more aware of fatigue in the clinical setting, for example, with the increasing use of patient-reported outcomes that evaluate fatigue40. A semistructured interview study with patients with RA found that fatigue permeated multiple aspects of life including work, leisure, and family roles, and led to feelings of uselessness and loss of self-esteem41. The frustration, irritability, and loss of control from fatigue negatively affected relationships. Fatigue was overwhelming, unpredictable, and much more intense than the tiredness they felt prior to the onset of RA. Participants felt their fatigue was dismissed by health professionals, and assumed that it was not treatable and that they had to manage it on their own. The findings from this study41 were used to develop a conceptual model of fatigue42, a patient-reported outcome measure for fatigue43, and a randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral approaches taught to nurses and occupational therapists in rheumatology care teams to improve fatigue44. These studies highlighted the need for health professionals to address fatigue and for ways to involve a multidisciplinary team in supporting patients with this debilitating symptom.

Common approaches and methods used in qualitative health research

Qualitative research is inherently subjective, as the purpose is to elicit opinions and understand human behavior. The data are co-constructed between the researcher and participants. Theory may be used to inform the design and approach of the study. For some approaches, including grounded theory, the study is designed to generate theory from the findings. There are several specific approaches (i.e., strategies of inquiry, theoretical frameworks) that are used as a basis of conducting qualitative research45,46. These approaches can guide the procedures for participant selection, data collection, and analysis. Although many approaches exist, 5 of the most common approaches in health research47 are grounded theory48, ethnography49,50, phenomenology51,52,53, case studies54, and narrative research55. The differences in these approaches are summarized in Figure 1 with illustrative examples of qualitative research in rheumatology56,57,58,59,60. General characteristics of participant selection, data collection, and data analysis that can apply to several qualitative approaches are described below. Researchers may design their study based on a single specific qualitative approach, or not specify a single approach but still use procedures that may be encountered within multiple approaches45. Qualitative methods can also be used as part of mixed methods research and is discussed below.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Five key qualitative approaches used in health research.

Participant selection. Qualitative research typically involves an in-depth inquiry within a selected population. Purposive sampling is often used and involves selecting participants who are relevant to the research question with the aim of including a diversity of relevant perspectives8. Other sampling strategies include snowballing, which requires participants to identify other potential participants61. This approach may be useful for including individuals who are hard to access, or those with specific expertise or divergent opinions. These sampling methods are preferred to convenience sampling, which involves recruiting participants who are the most easily accessible8 (e.g., consecutive patients from a single rheumatology clinic who are willing to participate in the study), because it is less likely to capture a broad range of perspectives.

Sample sizes are guided by the methodological approach, study design, participant population, research question, and available resources. As a guide, semistructured interview studies may have 30–60 participants depending on the amount of data obtained per interview62. In grounded theory, 20–30 participants of each population included in the study are generally reported to be adequate. For phenomenological studies that require interviewing each person multiple times, 6–10 participants may be sufficient62. For focus groups, 6–8 participants are recommended to optimize group interaction, with 3–5 groups for each characteristic of interest (e.g., based on a clinical diagnosis)63. Rather than having prespecified sample sizes, recruitment in qualitative research may cease when saturation is achieved61. This is defined as the point when the collection and analysis of new data no longer elicits new insights.

Data collection. Semistructured interviews and focus groups are commonly used in qualitative health research64. These methods are effective in eliciting individual experiences, preferences, and values to inform clinical practice. Focus groups capitalize on group interaction and allow participants to talk to each other, compare points of view, brainstorm ideas, and can be used to record interpersonal language, culture, and dynamics8,64. The facilitator keeps the group on task, asks probing questions, and encourages the participation of all members of the focus group. Semistructured interviews may be particularly useful when discussing sensitive issues or if participants are concerned about maintaining their confidentiality64. The interview guide includes open-ended questions pertinent to the research questions64. The guide is designed to encourage participants to openly pursue their perspectives in detail. Audio or visual recordings and transcription of interviews and focus groups ensure that data is comprehensively captured for further analysis; these can be complemented by field notes that encapsulate contextual details, nonverbal communication, and interactions within a group setting as well as initial reflections of the qualitative researcher8.

Data may also be collected through observations or documents. Observations are a way of gathering data by systematically watching events and people to study their relationships and routine behaviors, and is frequently applied in studies using ethnographic methodology64. In qualitative health research, this is particularly suited to understand how organizations work or how different members in the healthcare environment interact with each other64. Observations may be covert or overt, and may involve the researcher as a participant or nonparticipant in the environment64. Documents include printed and electronic materials such as diaries, newspaper articles, and organizational and institutional reports. These may be used for historical or policy studies or to evaluate healthcare organizations or programs8,65.

Data analysis. The analysis of qualitative data generally seeks to develop a comprehensive understanding and description of the phenomenon being investigated. The output of qualitative research differs depending on the methodology. For example, thematic analysis will yield themes (patterns of shared meaning that together give a comprehensive picture of the population of interest’s experience)66, ethnographic studies are designed to provide insights into the behaviors and perceptions of a sociocultural group49, phenomenology seeks to describe a phenomenon from the lived experience of individuals67, and grounded theory develops a theory arising from the data48. The processes used in qualitative data analysis involve data reduction (by coding and identifying meaningful sections of the data into labels), data organization (in which codes are collected and sorted), and interpretation (where data are analyzed to understand meaning; codes are categorized and compared; and emerging themes or theories are developed)64. Data analysis should be an iterative process that involves cycles of data collection, analysis, and then resumption of data collection to further explore and challenge emerging themes or theories61.

Qualitative analysis software manages qualitative data and provides efficient methods for storing, organizing, and retrieving qualitative data8. These programs, however, cannot conduct the analysis of the data. Investigators must create their own codes and interpret their data. The interpretive nature of qualitative research inevitably means that the researcher’s background, knowledge, and values can influence the analysis of the data. Several methods can be used to ensure the results accurately reflect the spectrum of the participants’ perspective. These include member checking (sharing preliminary findings with participants to check whether their viewpoints are accurately captured), investigator triangulation (incorporating input from team members in the analysis, especially from different backgrounds), and reflexivity (reflecting on personal experiences and biases using a diary or field notes in relation to the data analysis)8,61.

Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods

A study may also use a mixed methods approach, which is a distinct research methodology where both qualitative and quantitative data are collected. Mixed methods research requires an integrated analysis and the use of rigorous qualitative and quantitative research methods68. Mixed methods research can be classified into 3 core mixed methods designs: convergent (where qualitative and quantitative data are collected and analyzed simultaneously within a single phase)69,70,71; sequential explanatory (where quantitative data is collected first, then qualitative data is collected to explain the quantitative findings)72; and sequential exploratory (where qualitative data is collected, a feature such as a new instrument or intervention is built, and then the feature is tested quantitatively)43,73,74. These core mixed methods designs can be built into more complex research designs such as within a randomized controlled trial41,44,75,76 and is recommended for process evaluations of complex interventions77. Before a trial, qualitative studies could generate hypotheses for examination, help develop and refine the intervention or outcome measures78,79, or enhance patient recruitment80,81. During a trial, qualitative methods could examine whether the intervention was delivered as intended, explore the participants’ responses to the intervention, and understand processes of implementation and change. After a trial, qualitative research can explain reasons for positive or negative findings of the trial, explain variations in effectiveness among trial participants, assess the acceptability of the intervention, or be used to generate further questions or hypotheses82.

Reporting and appraisal of qualitative research

The Enhancing Quality of Transparency of Health Research network recommends using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Health Research (COREQ) as a guideline for the reporting of qualitative research using interviews and focus groups83. There are several other guides available for the conduct and evaluation of qualitative research8,61,64,83,84,85, including the American Psychological Association’s Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research (JARS-Qual)86, which also provides guidance on how to structure a qualitative manuscript. However, the appraisal of qualitative research remains contentious, and there is debate as to how and even whether quality can be legitimately judged64,87,88. There is no empirical evidence to indicate which criteria are critical and how to assess them64,88. The framework by Lincoln and Guba addresses the rigor of qualitative research based on 4 criteria: credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability89. The links between the COREQ reporting items and these constructs of rigor are shown in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Appraisal of qualitative studies using the Lincoln and Guba framework91 linked to examples from the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Health Research (COREQ) items.

Credibility: Are the findings trustworthy? Credibility refers to having confidence in the truth of the findings (analogous to internal validity in quantitative research)85. Readers may be confident that the findings are credible if the researcher provides a comprehensive and sensible explanation of the data. Comprehensiveness includes ensuring that the true breadth and depth of the phenomena in question were explored. Breadth of data can be captured using purposive sampling, continuing to sample until data saturation, and the final sample size. Depth of data may be gauged by reviewing the question guide and duration of the interview or focus group to determine if they allow the participant to discuss the topic of interest in detail, and whether efforts were made to provide a setting that allows participants to feel comfortable to express their opinions. In addition, triangulation in qualitative research allows a generation of deeper and richer insights. This includes using multiple data sources or data collection methods (data triangulation), or involving multiple researchers (investigator triangulation) in the analysis of data8. Involving multiple researchers in coding can ensure that findings adequately capture all aspects of the data. A clear and insightful presentation of major and minor themes provides a final check on the comprehensiveness of data findings. Member checking allows participants to provide feedback on preliminary findings and ensures that findings are a sensible interpretation of their experiences.

Confirmability: Are the findings linked to the data? Confirmability refers to the extent to which findings of the study are shaped by the data and are not a misinterpretation of findings by the researcher (analogous to objectivity in quantitative research)85. This can be demonstrated by showing raw data such as quotations and linking them to findings from the study. The researcher may describe self-reflexivity, whereby they recognize and reduce any undue influences on their interpretations of the data. Interpretations of data can also be confirmed using multiple data coders, triangulation, and member checking, as noted in relation to credibility85.

Dependability: Is the process auditable? Dependability is analogous to reliability in quantitative research85. Due to the nature of qualitative research, it is not possible for another researcher to fully replicate a qualitative study. However, a rigorous and systematic approach to qualitative research can be followed with a coherent link formed between the findings and methods used in the study. Audio or video recordings, transcription of data, and the use of qualitative software for coding allow transparent and auditable documentation of the research process8. The raw data and analysis can thus be reviewed by others.

Transferability: Are the findings relevant to other contexts? Transferability describes the degree to which themes or concepts from a qualitative study can be applicable to other contexts (analogous to external validity in quantitative research)85. By providing details about participants’ characteristics and study setting in enough detail (termed thick description), readers of qualitative research can determine whether the findings may be applicable to their own setting. In addition, comparing the results of the study with other studies in different populations or to existing theory can also help demonstrate the broader relevance of the study findings.

Conclusion

Qualitative studies have the potential to generate a deep understanding of people’s experiences, motivations, beliefs, goals, expectations, and needs. In rheumatology, evidence from qualitative studies has made a unique and valuable contribution to practice and policy. Qualitative research can be systematic, rigorous, and evaluated using the principles of credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability. We suggest that further qualitative research is needed in rheumatology to address evidence gaps regarding patient priorities in the management of rare rheumatic conditions, coordination and integration of care among healthcare professionals, and education about the psychosocial effects of disease. Incorporating insights from qualitative studies into clinical care, policies, and trials can help promote patient-centered care to improve outcomes for patients with rheumatic conditions.

Footnotes

  • A.T. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship (ID 1106716). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

  • Accepted for publication June 26, 2020.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Barry MJ,
    2. Edgman-Levitan S.
    Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:780-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Voshaar MJ,
    2. Nota I,
    3. van de Laar MA,
    4. van den Bemt BJ.
    Patient-centred care in established rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2015;29:643-63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Smolen JS,
    2. Landewe R,
    3. Bijlsma J,
    4. Burmester G,
    5. Chatzidionysiou K,
    6. Dougados M, et al.
    EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:960-77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. van der Heijde D,
    2. Ramiro S,
    3. Landewe R,
    4. Baraliakos X,
    5. Van den Bosch F,
    6. Sepriano A, et al.
    2016 update of the ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:978-91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ringold S,
    2. Angeles-Han ST,
    3. Beukelman T,
    4. Lovell D,
    5. Cuello CA,
    6. Becker ML, et al.
    2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: therapeutic approaches for non-systemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis. Arthritis Care Res 2019;71:717-34.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Downe S,
    2. Finlayson KW,
    3. Lawrie TA,
    4. Lewin SA,
    5. Glenton C,
    6. Rosenbaum S, et al.
    Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for guidelines: paper 1 - using qualitative evidence synthesis to inform guideline scope and develop qualitative findings statements. Health Res Policy Syst 2019;17:76.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Kuper A,
    2. Reeves S,
    3. Levinson W.
    An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008;337:a288.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Giacomini MK,
    2. Cook DJ.
    Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 2000;284:357-62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Johnson SR,
    2. O’Brien KK.
    Qualitative methods in systemic sclerosis research. J Rheumatol 2016;43:1265-7.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Paley J,
    2. Lilford R.
    Qualitative methods: an alternative view. BMJ 2011;342:d424.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Saketkoo LA,
    2. Pauling JD.
    Qualitative methods to advance care, diagnosis, and therapy in rheumatic diseases. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2018;44:267-84.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Borreani C,
    2. Miccinesi G,
    3. Brunelli C,
    4. Lina M.
    An increasing number of qualitative research papers in oncology and palliative care: does it mean a thorough development of the methodology of research? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Tong A,
    2. Winkelmayer WC,
    3. Craig JC.
    Qualitative research in CKD: an overview of methods and applications. Am J Kidney Dis 2014;64:338-46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Goguen J,
    2. Knight M,
    3. Tiberius R.
    Is it science? A study of the attitudes of medical trainees and physicians toward qualitative and quantitative research. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008;13:659-74.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hsu CY,
    2. Lin YS,
    3. Cheng TT,
    4. Syu YJ,
    5. Lin MS,
    6. Lin HF, et al.
    Adherence to hydroxychloroquine improves long-term survival of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology 2018;57:1743-51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Jaleel A,
    2. Saag KG,
    3. Danila MI.
    Improving drug adherence in osteoporosis: an update on more recent studies. Ther Adv Musc Dis 2018;10:141-9.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Scheepers L,
    2. Burden AM,
    3. Arts ICW,
    4. Spaetgens B,
    5. Souverein P,
    6. de Vries F, et al.
    Medication adherence among gout patients initiated allopurinol: a retrospective cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Rheumatology 2018;57:1641-50.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Pasma A,
    2. Schenk CV,
    3. Timman R,
    4. Busschbach JJV,
    5. van den Bemt BJF,
    6. Molenaar E, et al.
    Non-adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is associated with higher disease activity in early arthritis patients in the first year of the disease. Arthritis Res Ther 2015;17:281.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Kelly A,
    2. Tymms K,
    3. Tunnicliffe D,
    4. Sumpton D,
    5. Perera C,
    6. Fallon K, et al.
    Patients’ attitudes and experiences of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis; a qualitative synthesis. Arthritis Care Res 2018;70:525-32.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Rai SK,
    2. Choi HK,
    3. Choi SHJ,
    4. Townsend AF,
    5. Shojania K,
    6. De Vera MA.
    Key barriers to gout care: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Rheumatology 2018;57:1282-92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Shaw Y,
    2. Metes ID,
    3. Michaud K,
    4. Donohue JM,
    5. Roberts MS,
    6. Levesque MC, et al.
    Rheumatoid arthritis patients’ motivations for accepting or resisting disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment regimens. Arthritis Care Res 2018;70:533-41.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. van Tuyl LH,
    2. Hewlett S,
    3. Sadlonova M,
    4. Davis B,
    5. Flurey C,
    6. Hoogland W, et al.
    The patient perspective on remission in rheumatoid arthritis: ‘You’ve got limits, but you’re back to being you again’. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:1004-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Nota I,
    2. Drossaert CH,
    3. Taal E,
    4. van de Laar MA.
    Patients’ considerations in the decision-making process of initiating disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:956-64.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Salt E,
    2. Rowles GD,
    3. Reed DB.
    Patient’s perception of quality patient–provider communication. Orthop Nurs 2012;31:169-76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. van Tuyl LH,
    2. Plass AM,
    3. Lems WF,
    4. Voskuyl AE,
    5. Kerstens PJ,
    6. Dijkmans BA, et al.
    Discordant perspectives of rheumatologists and patients on COBRA combination therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2008;47:1571-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Shaw Y,
    2. Bradley M,
    3. Zhang C,
    4. Dominique A,
    5. Michaud K,
    6. McDonald D, et al.
    The development of resilience among rheumatoid arthritis patients: a qualitative study. Arthritis Care Res 2020;72:1257-65.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Pasma A,
    2. van ‘t Spijker A,
    3. Luime JJ,
    4. Walter MJ,
    5. Busschbach JJ,
    6. Hazes JM.
    Facilitators and barriers to adherence in the initiation phase of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use in patients with arthritis who recently started their first DMARD treatment. J Rheumatol 2015;42:379-85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Salt E,
    2. Peden A.
    The complexity of the treatment: the decision-making process among women with rheumatoid arthritis. Qual Health Res 2011;21:214-22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Tattersall R,
    2. McDonagh JE.
    Transition: a rheumatology perspective. Br J Hosp Med 2010;71:315-9.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Howland S,
    2. Fisher K.
    Looking through the patient lens - improving best practice for young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis transitioning into adult care. Springerplus 2015;4:111.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Hersh A,
    2. von Scheven E,
    3. Yelin E.
    Adult outcomes of childhood-onset rheumatic diseases. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2011;7:290-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Ostlie IL,
    2. Dale O,
    3. Moller A.
    From childhood to adult life with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA): a pilot study. Disabil Rehabil 2007;29:445-52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Wells C.
    Wellness in the midst of disease: A narrative analysis of growing up with rheumatic conditions [dissertation]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; 2015.
  34. 34.↵
    1. Hilderson D,
    2. Eyckmans L,
    3. Van der Elst K,
    4. Westhovens R,
    5. Wouters C,
    6. Moons P.
    Transfer from paediatric rheumatology to the adult rheumatology setting: experiences and expectations of young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 2013;32:575-83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Shaw KL,
    2. Southwood TR,
    3. McDonagh JE; British Paediatric Rheumatology Group
    . User perspectives of transitional care for adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Rheumatology 2004;43:770-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Tunnicliffe DJ,
    2. Singh-Grewal D,
    3. Chaitow J,
    4. Mackie F,
    5. Manolios N,
    6. Lin MW, et al.
    Lupus means sacrifices: perspectives of adolescents and young adults with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res 2016;68:828-37.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Hilderson D,
    2. Moons P,
    3. Van der Elst K,
    4. Luyckx K,
    5. Wouters C,
    6. Westhovens R.
    The clinical impact of a brief transition programme for young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results of the don’t retard project. Rheumatology 2016;55:133-42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Wolfe F,
    2. Hawley DJ,
    3. Wilson K.
    The prevalence and meaning of fatigue in rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol 1996;23:1407-17.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Repping-Wuts H,
    2. van Riel P,
    3. van Achterberg T.
    Rheumatologists’ knowledge, attitude and current management of fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Clin Rheumatol 2008;27:1549-55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Fautrel B,
    2. Alten R,
    3. Kirkham B,
    4. de la Torre I,
    5. Durand F,
    6. Barry J, et al.
    Call for action: How to improve use of patient-reported outcomes to guide clinical decision making in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int 2018;38:935-47.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Hewlett S,
    2. Cockshott Z,
    3. Byron M,
    4. Kitchen K,
    5. Tipler S,
    6. Pope D, et al.
    Patients’ perceptions of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: overwhelming, uncontrollable, ignored. Arthritis Rheum 2005;53:697-702.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Hewlett S,
    2. Chalder T,
    3. Choy E,
    4. Cramp F,
    5. Davis B,
    6. Dures E, et al.
    Fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: time for a conceptual model. Rheumatology 2011;50:1004-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Nicklin J,
    2. Cramp F,
    3. Kirwan J,
    4. Urban M,
    5. Hewlett S.
    Collaboration with patients in the design of patient-reported outcome measures: capturing the experience of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:1552-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    1. Hewlett S,
    2. Almeida C,
    3. Ambler N,
    4. Blair PS,
    5. Choy EH,
    6. Dures E, et al; RAFT Study Group
    . Reducing arthritis fatigue impact: two-year randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural approaches by rheumatology teams (RAFT). Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:465-72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Tesch R.
    Types of qualitative analysis. In: Qualitative research: analysis types and software. London: Routledge; 1990:77-92.
  46. 46.↵
    1. Creswell JW,
    2. Creswell JD.
    Qualitative methods. In: Salmon H, Neve C, Felts DC, Marks A, editors. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2018:179-211.
  47. 47.↵
    1. Creswell J,
    2. Poth C.
    Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2017.
  48. 48.↵
    1. Corbin J,
    2. Strauss A.
    Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2008.
  49. 49.↵
    1. Reeves S,
    2. Kuper A,
    3. Hodges BD.
    Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. BMJ 2008;337:a1020.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Atkinson P,
    2. Coffey A,
    3. Delamont S,
    4. Lofland J,
    5. Lofland L.
    Handbook of ethnography. London: Sage Publication; 2001.
  51. 51.↵
    1. Hammond M,
    2. Howarth J,
    3. Keat R.
    Understanding phenomenology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 1991.
  52. 52.↵
    1. Moustakas C.
    Phenomenological research methods. Virding A, editor. California, Sage Publications; 1994.
  53. 53.↵
    1. Van Manen M.
    Phenomenology of practice: meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Morse J, editor. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press Inc; 2014.
  54. 54.↵
    1. Yin RK.
    Case study research: design and methods. 5th edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2014.
  55. 55.↵
    1. Riessman CK.
    Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2008.
  56. 56.↵
    1. Thurston WE,
    2. Coupal S,
    3. Jones CA,
    4. Crowshoe LF,
    5. Marshall DA,
    6. Homik J, et al.
    Discordant indigenous and provider frames explain challenges in improving access to arthritis care: a qualitative study using constructivist grounded theory. Int J Equity Health 2014;13:46.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    1. Kottak N,
    2. Tesser J,
    3. Leibowitz E,
    4. Rosenberg M,
    5. Parenti D,
    6. DeHoratius R.
    Ethnographic observational study of the biologic initiation conversation between rheumatologists and biologic-naive rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res 2018;70:997-1004.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    1. Rose G.
    Why do patients with rheumatoid arthritis use complementary therapies? Musculoskeletal Care 2006;4:101-15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Grant M.
    Mothers with arthritis, child care and occupational therapy: insight through case studies. Br J Occup Ther 2001; 64:322-9.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    1. Stamm T,
    2. Lovelock L,
    3. Stew G,
    4. Nell V,
    5. Smolen J,
    6. Machold K, et al.
    I have a disease but I am not ill: a narrative study of occupational balance in people with rheumatoid arthritis. OTJR Occup Particip Health 2009;29:32-9.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    1. Kuper A,
    2. Lingard L,
    3. Levinson W.
    Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008;337:a1035.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  62. 62.↵
    1. Morse J.
    Determining sample size. Qual Health Res 2000;10:3-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.↵
    1. Morgan DL.
    Focus groups as qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1996.
  64. 64.↵
    1. Pope C,
    2. Mays N.
    Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. Boston: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.
  65. 65.↵
    1. Bowen GA.
    Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J 2009;9:27-40.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.↵
    1. Braun V,
    2. Clarke V,
    3. Hayfield N,
    4. Terry G.
    Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019:843-60.
  67. 67.↵
    1. Reeves S,
    2. Albert M,
    3. Kuper A,
    4. Hodges BD.
    Why use theories in qualitative research? BMJ 2008;337:a949.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  68. 68.↵
    1. Creswell JW,
    2. Creswell JD.
    Mixed methods procedures. In: Salmon H, Neve C, Felts DC, Marks A, editors. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2018:213-46.
  69. 69.↵
    1. Kelly A,
    2. Tymms K,
    3. de Wit M,
    4. Bartlett SJ,
    5. Cross M,
    6. Dawson T, et al.
    Patient and caregiver priorities for medication adherence in gout, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis: nominal group technique. Arthritis Care Res 2019 Jul 19 (E-pub ahead of print).
  70. 70.↵
    1. Tunnicliffe DJ,
    2. Singh-Grewal D,
    3. Craig JC,
    4. Howell M,
    5. Tugwell P,
    6. Mackie F, et al.
    Healthcare and research priorities of adolescents and young adults with systemic lupus erythematosus: a mixed-methods study. J Rheumatol 2017;44:444-51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    1. Carr ECJ,
    2. Ortiz MM,
    3. Patel JN,
    4. Barber CEH,
    5. Katz S,
    6. Robert J, et al.
    Models of arthritis care: a systems-level evaluation of acceptability as a dimension of quality of care. J Rheumatol 2020;47:1431-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. 72.↵
    1. Mahmood S,
    2. Hazes JM,
    3. Veldt P,
    4. van Riel P,
    5. Landewé R,
    6. Bernelot Moens H, et al.
    The development and evaluation of personalized training in shared decision-making skills for rheumatologists. J Rheumatol 2020;47:290-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.↵
    1. Nicklin J,
    2. Cramp F,
    3. Kirwan J,
    4. Greenwood R,
    5. Urban M,
    6. Hewlett S.
    Measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional study to evaluate the Bristol rheumatoid arthritis fatigue multi-dimensional questionnaire, visual analog scales, and numerical rating scales. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:1559-68.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. 74.↵
    1. Dures EK,
    2. Hewlett SE,
    3. Cramp FA,
    4. Greenwood R,
    5. Nicklin JK,
    6. Urban M, et al.
    Reliability and sensitivity to change of the Bristol rheumatoid arthritis fatigue scales. Rheumatology 2013; 52:1832-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Lewin S,
    2. Glenton C,
    3. Oxman AD.
    Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ 2009;339:b3496.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    1. Onwuegbuzie AJ,
    2. Leech NL.
    Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures 1. Qual Report 2006;11:474-98.
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.↵
    1. Oakley A,
    2. Strange V,
    3. Bonell C,
    4. Allen E,
    5. Stephenson J; RIPPLE Study Team
    . Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ 2006;332:413-6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  78. 78.↵
    1. Singh JA,
    2. Herbey I,
    3. Bharat A,
    4. Dinnella JE,
    5. Pullman-Mooar S,
    6. Eisen S, et al.
    Gout self-management in African American veterans: a qualitative exploration of challenges and solutions from patients’ perspectives. Arthritis Care Res 2017;69:1724-32.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    1. Craig ET,
    2. Orbai AM,
    3. Mackie S,
    4. Bartlett SJ,
    5. Bingham CO 3rd,
    6. Goodman S, et al.
    Advancing stiffness measurement in rheumatic disease: report from the stiffness special interest group at OMERACT 2018. J Rheumatol 2019;46:1374-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    1. Lima K,
    2. Phillip CR,
    3. Williams J,
    4. Peterson J,
    5. Feldman CH,
    6. Ramsey-Goldman R.
    Factors associated with participation in rheumatic disease-related research among underrepresented populations: a qualitative systematic review. Arthritis Care Res 2019 Jul 26 (E-pub ahead of print).
  81. 81.↵
    1. Karp DR,
    2. Chong BF,
    3. James JA,
    4. Arriens C,
    5. Ishimori M,
    6. Wallace DJ, et al.
    Mock recruitment for the study of antimalarials in incomplete lupus erythematosus trial. Arthritis Care Res 2019;71:1425-9.
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.↵
    1. Lawford BJ,
    2. Delany C,
    3. Bennell KL,
    4. Hinman RS.
    “I was really pleasantly surprised”: firsthand experience and shifts in physical therapist perceptions of telephone-delivered exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis-a qualitative study. Arthritis Care Res 2019;71:545-57.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    1. Tong A,
    2. Sainsbury P,
    3. Craig J.
    Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349-57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
    . CASP qualitative checklist (Internet. Accessed September 14, 2020.] Available from: casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists
  85. 85.↵
    1. Guba EG.
    Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educ Tech Res Develop 1981;29:75-91.
    OpenUrl
  86. 86.↵
    1. Levitt HM,
    2. Bamberg M,
    3. Creswell JW,
    4. Frost DM,
    5. Josselson R,
    6. Suárez-Orozco C.
    Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: the APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. Am Psychol 2018;73:26-46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Greenhalgh T,
    2. Taylor R.
    Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ 1997;315:740-3.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    1. Sandelowski M.
    Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1993;16:1-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Lincoln YS,
    2. Guba EG.
    Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage Publications; 1985.
  90. 90.
    1. Flurey CA,
    2. Hewlett S,
    3. Rodham K,
    4. White A,
    5. Noddings R,
    6. Kirwan JR.
    “You obviously just have to put on a brave face”: a qualitative study of the experiences and coping styles of men with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2017;69:330-7.
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.↵
    1. Hart RI,
    2. McDonagh JE,
    3. Thompson B,
    4. Foster HE,
    5. Kay L,
    6. Myers A, et al.
    Being as normal as possible: how young people ages 16-25 years evaluate the risks and benefits of treatment for inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2016;68:1288-94.
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.
    1. Sumpton D,
    2. Thakkar V,
    3. O’Neill S,
    4. Singh-Grewal D,
    5. Craig JC,
    6. Tong A.
    “It’s not me, it’s not really me.” Insights from patients on living with systemic sclerosis: an interview study. Arthritis Care Res 2017;69:1733-42.
    OpenUrl
  93. 93.
    1. Hewlett S,
    2. Sanderson T,
    3. May J,
    4. Alten R,
    5. Bingham CO 3rd,
    6. Cross M, et al.
    ‘I’m hurting, I want to kill myself ’: rheumatoid arthritis flare is more than a high joint count--an international patient perspective on flare where medical help is sought. Rheumatology 2012;51:69-76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

ONLINE SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary material accompanies the online version of this article.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 48, Issue 1
1 Jan 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Qualitative Research in Rheumatology: An Overview of Methods and Contributions to Practice and Policy
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Qualitative Research in Rheumatology: An Overview of Methods and Contributions to Practice and Policy
Ayano Kelly, Kathleen Tymms, Kieran Fallon, Daniel Sumpton, Peter Tugwell, David Tunnicliffe, Allison Tong
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2021, 48 (1) 6-15; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.191368

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Qualitative Research in Rheumatology: An Overview of Methods and Contributions to Practice and Policy
Ayano Kelly, Kathleen Tymms, Kieran Fallon, Daniel Sumpton, Peter Tugwell, David Tunnicliffe, Allison Tong
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2021, 48 (1) 6-15; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.191368
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
    • ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

focus groups
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
RESEARCH DESIGN
research methodology
SEMISTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Overview of Imaging in Adult- and Childhood-onset Takayasu Arteritis
  • The ASAS Health Index: A New Era for Health Impact Assessment in Spondyloarthritis
  • Nail Psoriasis: Diagnosis, Assessment, Treatment Options, and Unmet Clinical Needs
Show more Review

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • focus groups
  • qualitative research
  • research design
  • research methodology
  • semistructured interviews

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire