Qualitative Research in Clinical Epidemiology

  • Deborah M. GregoryEmail author
  • Christine Y. Way
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology™ book series (MIMB, volume 473)


This chapter has been written to specifically address the usefulness of qualitative research for the practice of clinical epidemiology. The methods of grounded theory to facilitate understanding of human behavior and construction of monitoring scales for use in quantitative studies are discussed. In end-stage renal disease patients receiving long-term hemodialysis, a qualitative study used grounded theory to generate a multilayered classification system, which culminated in a substantive theory on living with end-stage renal disease and hemodialysis. The qualitative database was revisited for the purpose of scale development and led to the Patient Perception of Hemodialysis Scale (PPHS). The quantitative study confirmed that the PPHS was psychometrically valid and reliable and supported the major premises of the substantive theory.

Key Words

Clinical epidemiology grounded theory instrument development qualitative research 


  1. 1.
    1. Jones, R. (2007) Strength of evidence in qualitative research. J Clin Epidemiol 60, 321–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    2. Poses, R. M., Isen, A. M. (1998) Qualitative research in medicine and health care questions and controversy. J Gen Int Med 13 (1), 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    3. Popay, J., Rogers, A., Williams, G. (1998) Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Res 8 (3), 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    4. Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., Mandle, C. L. (2001) Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Res 11(4), 522–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    5. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., Spiers, J. (2002) Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qualitative Methods 1 (2), 1–19.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    6. Horsburgh, D. (2003) Evaluation of qualitative research. J Clin Nurs 12, 307–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    7. Rolfe, G. (2006) Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. J Adv Nurs 53 (3), 304–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    8. Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    9. Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    10. Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    11. Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. CA: Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    12. Morse, J. M., Field, P. A. (1996) Nursing Research: The Application of Qualitative Approaches. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    13. Wilde, B., Starrin, B., Larsson, G., Larsson, M. (1993) Quality of care from the patient perspective: A grounded theory study. Scan J Caring Science 7 (2), 113–120.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    14. Tarlov, A. R., Ware, J. E., Jr., Greenfield, S., Nelson, E. C., Perrin, E., Zubkoff, M. (1989) The Medical Outcomes Study: An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA 262 (7), 925–930.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    15. Paget, L., Tarlov, A. R. (1996) The Medical Outcomes Trust: Improving medical outcomes from the patient's point of view. J Outcomes Management 3 (3), 18–23.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    16. Ferrans, C., Powers, M. J. (1993) Quality of life of hemodialysis patients. Psychometric assessment of the quality of life index. Am Neph Nur Assoc J 20 (5), 575–582.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Patient Research Centre, Health Sciences CentreNewfoundlandCanada

Personalised recommendations