Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 641–646 | Cite as

Ensuring rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative research in clinical pharmacy

  • Muhammad Abdul HadiEmail author
  • S. José Closs
Research Article

Abstract

The use of qualitative research methodology is well established for data generation within healthcare research generally and clinical pharmacy research specifically. In the past, qualitative research methodology has been criticized for lacking rigour, transparency, justification of data collection and analysis methods being used, and hence the integrity of findings. Demonstrating rigour in qualitative studies is essential so that the research findings have the “integrity” to make an impact on practice, policy or both. Unlike other healthcare disciplines, the issue of “quality” of qualitative research has not been discussed much in the clinical pharmacy discipline. The aim of this paper is to highlight the importance of rigour in qualitative research, present different philosophical standpoints on the issue of quality in qualitative research and to discuss briefly strategies to ensure rigour in qualitative research. Finally, a mini review of recent research is presented to illustrate the strategies reported by clinical pharmacy researchers to ensure rigour in their qualitative research studies.

Keywords

Clinical pharmacy Qualitative research Rigour Trustworthiness 

Notes

Funding

No funding from any governmental or non-governmental agency was obtained for this paper.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

References

  1. 1.
    Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:42–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson C. Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010;74(8):6 Article 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rolfe G. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. J Appl Nurs. 2006;53:304–10.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Long T, Johnson M. Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clin Eeffect Nurs. 2000;4:30–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):331–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1985.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sandelowski M. Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigour in qualitative research revisited. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1993;16:1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2002;1:13–22.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noble H, Smith J. Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs. 2015;18:34–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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;19:349–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89:1245–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: principles in practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Edu Inform. 2004;22:63–75.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandelowski M. The problem of rigor in feminist research. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1986;8:27–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nguyen TST. Peer debriefing. The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. 2008. http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/sage-encyc-qualitative-research-methods/n312.xml. Accessed 5 June 2014.
  19. 19.
    Ogunbayo OJ, Schafheutle EI, Cutts C, Noyce PR. A qualitative study exploring community pharmacists’ awareness of, and contribution to, self-care support in the management of long-term conditions in the United Kingdom. Res Soc Adm Pharm 2015. doi:  10.1016/j.sapharm.2014 [Published online Feb, 2015].
  20. 20.
    Shiyanbola OO, Mort JR. Exploring consumer understanding and preferences for pharmacy quality information. Pharm Pract. 2014;12:1–11.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murphy A, Szumilas M, Rowe D, et al. Pharmacy students’ experiences in provision of community pharmacy mental health services. Can Pharm J. 2014;147:55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ryder H, Aspden T, Sheridan J. The Hawke’s Bay Condom Card Scheme: a qualitative study of the views of service providers on increased, discreet access for youth to free condoms. Int J Pharm Pract. 2015. doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12178.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ziaei Z, Hassell K, Schafheutle EI. Internationally trained pharmacists’ perception of their communication proficiency and their views on the impact on patient safety. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2015;11:428–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hasan S, Stewart K, Chapman CB, Hasan MY, Kong DCM. Physicians’ attitudes towards provision of primary care services in community pharmacy in the United Arab Emirates. Int J Pharm Pract. 2014. doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marquis J, Schneider MP, Spencer B, Bugnon O, Pasquier SD. Exploring the implementation of a medication adherence programme by community pharmacists: a qualitative study Int J. Clin Pharm. 2014;36:1014–22.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Swain L, Griffits C, Lisa Pont L, Barclay L. Attitudes of pharmacists to provision of home medicines review for indigenous Australians. Int. J Clin Pharm. 2014;36:1260–7.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brazinha I, Fernandez-Llimos F. Barriers to the implementation of advanced clinical pharmacy services at Portuguese hospitals Int J. Clin Pharm. 2014;36:1031–8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Odukoya OK, Stone JA, Chui MA. Barriers and facilitators to recovering from e- prescribing errors in community pharmacies. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2015;55:52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of PharmacyUmm-Al-Qura UniversityMakkahSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.School of HealthcareUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations