Qualitative Research Methods: Evaluation of a Health Services Article

This report evaluates a qualitative research article titled "Identifying families’ reasons for engaging or not engaging with childhood obesity services: A qualitative study" by Banks et al. (2014). The evaluation uses Popay et al.'s (1998) framework for assessing the quality of qualitative research in health services. The report analyzes the article's background, methodology, and findings, focusing on the clarity of objectives, description of methods, and interpretation of data. The study's strengths, such as its use of semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis, are discussed, alongside limitations such as the lack of detailed discussion on the 'verstehen' approach. The report concludes that the article generally meets Popay's criteria, highlighting its implications for policy and practice in childhood obesity services and emphasizing the importance of considering the child’s perspective in clinical decision-making.

Running Head: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS
Qualitative Research methods
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS
Introduction
To evaluate the robustness of the findings, critical scrutiny of the published research
article is obvious. The paper aims to assess the quality of the qualitative research paper using the
criteria outlined in ‘Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in
health services research'by Popay et al. (1998). It is the formalized framework for the evaluation
of the qualitative study. This framework is useful in allowing the qualitative studies specified in
health research to receive optimum recognition. The qualitative study identified for this purpose
is based on a theme of obesity, “Identifying families’ reasons for engaging or not engaging with
childhood obesity services: A qualitative study” by Banks et al. (2014). This paper is concerned
with the management of obesity by highlighting the value of engaging children in the health care
decision to attend the obesity services.
Evaluation
According to Popay’s criteria, the one criterion to good qualitative study is the provision
sufficient details such as background, objectives’ highlighted with succinct statements, clear
description of the methodology and discussion of the main findings (Popay et al. 1998). Banks
et al. (2014) have provided a concise title to the article that itself give a precise hint about the
purpose and methodology of the research. The author’s credentials indicating the credibility of
the research follow the title. The background of the study is not too extensive. It is able to inform
readers about the problem area, which is obesity and its significance. Thus, the relevance of the
research is identified in the background of the study as also highlighted by (Holmes 2014). As
the background is followed by short literature, it indicates that subject has been thoroughly
researched by the author.

2QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS
As per the Popay’s criteria, a qualitative study must be able to illuminate the subjective
meaning and actions and the context of those being researched. Right in the abstract Banks et al.
(2014), the researcher articulates the use of the qualitative interviews to examine families’
reasons for engaging or not engaging with child obesity services. The desired method for
research suggested appears justified. The qualitative paper clearly highlights the context of those
being researched. Since the study aims to identify the reason for attrition due to lack of
adherence to treatment. Thus, it is justified that the researchers consider 15 families who
attended a UK-based childhood obesity service with children and 17 families whose children
withdrew from the intervention. Thus, this qualitative paper is well set out allowing the readers
to well recognise the research design and read effortlessly (Cope 2014).
The paper does not demonstrate in details about the verstehen approach adopted to
illuminate the meaning people attach to their behaviour that is in adherence to the intervention
for obesity (Popay et al. 1998). However, Banks et al. (2014), designed the paper to draw the
data from the interviews with families who participated in the Primary Care – Care of Childhood
Obesity (PC-COCO), Randomised control trial (two armed). This trial assessed the effectiveness
of incorporating the established secondary care clinic in the primary care setting. In short, the
privilege of the subjective meaning is not evident from the paper (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber
2017). Prior to the methodology section, the author highlights the results of the trial where he
found poor attrition rate, but the potentiality of the primary care service was noted.
A qualitative study must have the evidence of adoption and responsiveness of the
research design to the circumstances. Further, during the course of the study, the issue of social
settings in real life should be met. In short, there is a need of variability instead of
standardisation, which is the hallmark of good qualitative methodology (Popay et al. 1998). The

3QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS
same is evident in this paper were sampling, data collection, its interpretation and are
interdependent. The Popay’s criteria mention that the qualitative research must have the sample
that produces the type of knowledge to understand the environment in which the participants are
assessed. In the chosen paper, the author has chosen purposive convenience sampling. All the
participants are the most appropriate to the task itself and involve maximum variation. However,
the paper does not highlight the reason why some participants did not turn for the interview
(Leung 2015). Further, the author has clearly mentioned as to who conducted the interview and
that it was conducted over the phone for the group of participants that withdrew from treatment.
For the group that participated in the intervention were interviewed in their homes with children.
The use of the semi-structured interview was justified as the interviewer can look for the
technique of verbal communication and how the responses were given (Munn et al. 2014). The
element of vagueness is eliminated in the paper by Banks et al. (2014) as he mentioned the
duration of the interview and data recording process. Further, prior to discussing on the
methodology, the author elucidates the process of trial to rationalise the research. This section
thus meets the hallmark criteria of the qualitative study.
During this study, thematic mode of data analysis was used (Banks et al. 2014). This
coding method recognises main themes, and emphasise on ideas and feelings (Popay et al. 1998).
Since more than one author was involved in the interview process, its eliminates the probability
of discrepancies and bias. This is also evident from the ethics committee approval and informed
consent taken from participants. There is an evidence of adequate description of the individual
sections such as introduction, methods, results and discussions as well as on the subsections such
as the interview with families, data analysis and presentation (Holloway and Galvin 2016).

4QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS
The Popay’s criteria emphasise on the evidence of data quality and of theoretical and of
conceptual adequacy (Popay et al. 1998). The paper must have a potential for assessing
typicality. The paper demonstrates interpretive validity. The researcher Banks et al. (2014) not
only described the data but also gave the quotation to interpret the meaning and significance of
the response. The researcher did not give a wide comparison of the statements and indexes of the
behaviour. In the qualitative paper, the author findings are scientifically credible and can be
transferred to others settings as highlighted by Popay et al. (1998). The findings can be used to
understand the attrition of the people in the diabetes treatment clinics. The author of the
qualitative paper has linked the purposefulness to the representativeness. In addition, the
researcher has not missed highlighting the strengths, limitations, practice implications such as
incorporating the child’s clinical decision-making process (Kallio et al. 2016). The author has
also provided suggestions lastly to improve the clinical environment to decrease the attrition rate.
The parts of the setting can be treated as typical of a large number of setting. In case the setting,
time and place are explicit, it may enhance the typicality of the findings by using other sources
such as congruent pieces of research, non-official statistics, and policy documents (Lipp and
Fothergill 2015).
Conclusion
The criterion that was considered a hallmark of the good qualitative health research is
met o a great context by the chosen qualitative paper. The paper was thus evaluated using the
Popay’s criteria on various dimensions such as interpretation of the subjective meaning,
theoretical basis, sampling process, data collection methods, and concern with generalisability.
The findings were important, and the background information was sufficient to make the
judgments. Overall, the qualitative paper has clear implications for policy and practice. Thus,

5QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS
Popay’s criteria well define the quality standards for assessing the qualitative methodology in the
health service research.

6QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS
References
Banks, J., Cramer, H., Sharp, D.J., Shield, J.P. and Turner, K.M., 2014. Identifying families’
reasons for engaging or not engaging with childhood obesity services: A qualitative
study. Journal of Child Health Care, 18(2), pp.101-110.
Cope, D.G., 2014, January. Methods and meanings: credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative
research. In Oncology nursing forum (Vol. 41, No. 1).
Holloway, I. and Galvin, K., 2016. Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. John Wiley
& Sons.
Holmes, J., 2014. Countertransference in qualitative research: a critical appraisal. Qualitative
Research, 14(2), pp.166-183.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.M., Johnson, M. and Kangasniemi, M., 2016. Systematic methodological
review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of
advanced nursing, 72(12), pp.2954-2965.
Leung, L., 2015. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of
family medicine and primary care, 4(3), p.324.
Lipp, A. and Fothergill, A., 2015. A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological
appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care. Nurse education today, 35(3), pp.e14-e17.
LoBiondo-Wood, G. and Haber, J., 2017. Nursing Research-E-Book: Methods and Critical
Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences.

7QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS
Munn, Z., Porritt, K., Lockwood, C., Aromataris, E. and Pearson, A., 2014. Establishing
confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC medical
research methodology, 14(1), p.108.
Popay, J., Rogers, A. and Williams, G., 1998. Rationale and standards for the systematic review
of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative health research, 8(3), pp.341-351.