IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0057371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Academic Impact of Qualitative Studies in Healthcare: Bibliometric Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hiroko Mori
  • Takeo Nakayama

Abstract

Context: Although qualitative studies are becoming more appreciated in healthcare, the number of publications of quality studies remains low. Little is known about the frequency and characteristics of citation in qualitative studies. Objective: To compare the academic impact of qualitative studies to that of two quantitative studies: systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. Methods: Publications in BMJ between 1997 and 2006 (BMJ’s median impact factor was 7.04 during this period) employing qualitative methods were matched to two quantitative studies appearing the same year using PubMed. Using Web of Science, citations within a 24-month publication period were determined. Additionally, three hypotheses were examined: qualitative studies are 1) infrequently cited in original articles or reviews; 2) rarely cited by authors in non-English-speaking countries; and 3) more frequently cited in non-medical disciplines (e.g., psychology or sociology). Results: A total of 121 qualitative studies, 270 systematic reviews, and 515 randomised controlled trials were retrieved. Qualitative studies were cited a total of 1,089 times, with a median of 7.00 times (range, 0–34) for each study. Matched systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were cited 2,411times and 1,600 times, respectively. With respect to citing documents, original articles and reviews exceeded 60% for each study design. Relative to quantitative studies, qualitative studies were cited more often by authors in English-speaking countries. With respect to subject area, medical disciplines were more frequently cited than non-medical disciplines for all three study designs (>80%). Conclusion: The median number of citations for qualitative studies was almost the same as the median of BMJ’s impact factor during the survey period. For a suitable evaluation of qualitative studies in healthcare, it will be necessary to develop a reporting framework and include explicit discussions of clinical implications when reporting findings. Coordination between researchers and editors will be needed to achieve this goal.

Suggested Citation

  • Hiroko Mori & Takeo Nakayama, 2013. "Academic Impact of Qualitative Studies in Healthcare: Bibliometric Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-7, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0057371
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057371
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057371&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0057371?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Louis Okon AKPAN, 2020. "I Have Not Seen Any: Underrepresentation Of Qualitative Researchers At The Faculties Of Education In Nigerian Universities," Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Department of Communication, Journalism and Education Sciences, University of Craiova, vol. 7(2), pages 126-151, December.
    2. Xinmin Zhang & Ronald C Estoque & Hualin Xie & Yuji Murayama & Manjula Ranagalage, 2019. "Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles on ecosystem services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Ze-jun Jia & Bo Hong & Da-ming Chen & Qing-hai Huang & Zhi-gang Yang & Cha Yin & Xiao-qun Deng & Jian-min Liu, 2014. "China's Growing Contribution to Global Intracranial Aneurysm Research (1991–2012): A Bibliometric Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0057371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.