Advertisement

Qualitative research in pediatric urology

Published:November 03, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.10.034

      Summary

      Introduction

      Qualitative studies have become increasingly common in the pediatric urology literature due to their ability to enhance our understanding of physicians’ and patients’ preferences, attitudes, and beliefs. The pediatric urology literature currently lacks clear guidelines for reporting qualitative research. In their absence, it is challenging to judge the quality of these studies.

      Objectives

      The objectives of this educational article are to define what is involved in rigorous qualitative research studies, help readers recognize high-quality qualitative research, and provide practical skills in designing and implementing qualitative research.

      Results

      Acknowledging researcher biases, taking steps to reduce bias and increase reflexivity, and clear descriptions of research and data collection methods all contribute increased rigor and trustworthiness of qualitative studies. Proper selection of qualitative methodology, derived from the research question to be answered, establishes a foundation for reliable and meaningful data.

      Conclusion

      As the field continues to grow, the standardization of reporting of these essential parameters becomes paramount so readers can gauge how findings can be appropriately applied to clinical practice.

      Keywords:

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Scales Jr., C.D.
        • Lai H.H.
        • Desai A.C.
        • Antonelli J.A.
        • Maalouf N.M.
        • Tasian G.E.
        • et al.
        Study to enhance understanding of stent-associated symptoms: rationale and study design.
        J Endourol. 2021; 35: 761-768https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0776
        • Boucher N.A.
        • Alkazemi M.H.
        • Tejwani R.
        • Routh J.C.
        Parents of children with newly diagnosed disorders of sex development identify major concerns: a qualitative study.
        Urology. 2022; 164: 218-223https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.01.001
        • Chan K.H.
        • Panoch J.
        • Carroll A.
        • Wiehe S.
        • Cain M.P.
        • Frankel R.
        Knowledge gaps and information seeking by parents about hypospadias.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2020; 16: 166 e1-e8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.01.008
        • Johnson E.K.
        • Rosoklija I.
        • Shurba A.
        • D'Oro A.
        • Gordon E.J.
        • Chen D.
        • et al.
        Future fertility for individuals with differences of sex development: parent attitudes and perspectives about decision-making.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2017; 13: 402-413https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.06.002
        • Streur C.S.
        • Sandberg D.E.
        • Kalpakjian C.Z.
        • Wittmann D.A.
        • Quint E.H.
        How to discuss sexual health with girls and young women with spina bifida: a practical guide for the urologist.
        Urology. 2021; 151: 72-78https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.068
        • Korstjens I.
        • Moser A.
        Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: context, research questions and designs.
        Eur J Gen Pract. 2017; 23: 274-279https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375090
        • Johnson J.L.
        • Adkins D.
        • Chauvin S.
        A Review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research.
        Am J Pharm Educ. 2020; 84: 7120https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120
        • Creswell J.W.K.A.
        • Plano Clark V.L.
        • Smith KC for the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
        Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences.
        National Institutes of Health, 2011
        • Anderson C.
        Presenting and evaluating qualitative research.
        Am J Pharm Educ. 2010; 74: 141https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7408141
        • Wu Y.P.
        • Deatrick J.A.
        • McQuaid E.L.
        • Thompson D.
        A primer on mixed methods for pediatric researchers.
        J Pediatr Psychol. 2019; 44: 905-913https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsz052
        • Austin Z.
        • Sutton J.
        Qualitative research: getting started.
        Can J Hosp Pharm. 2014; 67: 436-440https://doi.org/10.4212/cjhp.v67i6.1406
        • Cooke A.
        • Smith D.
        • Booth A.
        Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis.
        Qual Health Res. 2012; 22: 1435-1443https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
        • Bhattacharya K.
        Fundamentals of qualitative research: a practical guide.
        Routledge, 2017
        • Reeves S.
        • Kuper A.
        • Hodges B.D.
        Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography.
        BMJ. 2008; 337: a1020https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1020
        • Ayes L.
        Semi-structured interview.
        in: Given L. The SAGE Encyclopedia of qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc., 2008: 811-812
        • Barbour R.
        Doing focus groups.
        SAGE Publications, Inc., 2007
        • Guest G.B.A.
        • Johnson L.
        How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability.
        Field Methods. 2006; 18
        • Schneider N.C.
        • Coates W.C.
        • Yarris L.M.
        Taking your qualitative research to the next level: a guide for the medical educator.
        AEM Educ Train. 2017; 1: 368-378https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10065
        • Hsieh H.F.
        • Shannon S.E.
        Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
        Qual Health Res. 2005; 15: 1277-1288https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
        • Graneheim U.H.
        • Lindgren B.M.
        • Lundman B.
        Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: a discussion paper.
        Nurse Educ Today. 2017; 56: 29-34https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002
        • Burla L.
        • Knierim B.
        • Barth J.
        • Liewald K.
        • Duetz M.
        • Abel T.
        From text to codings: intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis.
        Nurs Res. 2008; 57: 113-117https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNR.0000313482.33917.7d
        • Vollstedt M.
        • Rezat S.
        An introduction to grounded theory with a special focus on axial coding and the coding paradigm.
        in: Kaiser G. Presmeg N. Compendium for Early Career Researchers in Mathematics Education. Springer, 2019
        • O'Brien B.C.
        • Harris I.B.
        • Beckman T.J.
        • Reed D.A.
        • Cook D.A.
        Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.
        Acad Med. 2014; 89: 1245-1251https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
        • Tong A.
        • Sainsbury P.
        • 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: 349-357https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
        • Dossett L.A.
        • Kaji A.H.
        • Cochran A.
        SRQR and COREQ reporting guidelines for qualitative studies.
        JAMA Surg. 2021; 156: 875-876https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0525
        • Vemulakonda V.M.
        • Hamer M.K.
        • Kempe A.
        • Morris M.A.
        Surgical decision-making in infants with suspected UPJ obstruction: stakeholder perspectives.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2019; 15: 469 e1-e9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.05.027
        • Linde J.M.
        • Ekelmans-Hogenkamp J.L.A.
        • Hofmeester I.
        • Kroes-van Hattem G.
        • Steffens M.G.
        • Kloosterman-Eijgenraam F.J.
        • et al.
        Parents' expectations of the outpatient care for daytime urinary incontinence in children: a qualitative study.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2021; 17: 473 e1-e7https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.05.026
        • Marokakis S.
        • Kasparian N.A.
        • Kennedy S.E.
        Parents' perceptions of counselling following prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract: a qualitative study.
        BJU Int. 2017; 119: 474-481https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13668
        • Kaplan A.L.K.M.
        • Tan H.J.
        • Setlur N.P.
        • Agarwal N.
        • Steinberg K.
        • Saigal C.S.
        Use of patient ethnography to support quality improvement in benign prostatic hyperplasia Healthc (Amst).
        Healthcare. 2014; 2: 263-267
        • Carter E.J.P.D.
        • Mandel L.
        • Sinnette C.
        • Schuur J.
        Emergency department catheter-associated urinary tract infection prevention: multisite qualitative study of perceived risks and implemented strategies.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016; 37: 156-162