Quality of the published qualitative dental research is mediocre

Abstract

Data sources

Journal selection was from the 2003 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (for dental journals) and the 2005 Journal Citation Reports Science and Social Science Edition (for the non-dental journals). The database searched was the Ovid version of Medline.

Study selection

Studies had to be in English, with a predominantly qualitative approach, published between 1999 and 2004 (for dental journals) and between 2002 and 2006 (for non-dental journals)

Data extraction and synthesis

Articles were screened by a research team experienced in sociology, psychology and oral health qualitative research. Two researchers independently appraised each paper and reached consensus, involving a third researcher to resolve disagreements where necessary. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) appraisal framework for qualitative research was used to assess the quality of the papers and this was one of the outcomes. The main outcome was the percentage of the CASP criteria which were fully met for each study, and these were then grouped under journal impact factor range.

Results

Forty-three qualitative research papers were appraised. Twenty-five were in dental journals and 18 in non-dental journals. There was a gradient in the number of studies published according to the journal impact factor, with the highest impact factor journals publishing the least qualitative research. There was a general lack of detail in reporting within the papers, with 35% of the studies providing little or no details about the analysis process, such as the stages involved or derivation of themes. Methodological rigour was considered deficient in many of the studies and in a number of areas: eg data saturation was mentioned in only 25% of studies; how contradictory data were managed was discussed in 25%; and a third of the studies gave little justification for the methods chosen.

Conclusions

The quality of much of the published qualitative dental research is mediocre when assessed using the CASP framework, and several specific areas have been identified for targeting improvement, including better methodological rigour and increased detail in reporting.

Log in or create a free account to read this content

Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com

Access through your institution

or

Sign in or create an account

Continue with Google

Continue with ORCiD