Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Gale, Nicola K; Heath, Gemma; Cameron, Elaine; Rashid, Sabina; Redwood, Sabi (2013)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: BMC Medical Research Methodology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Epidemiology, Qualitative content analysis, Correspondence, Multi-disciplinary research, Qualitative research
Background: The Framework Method is becoming an increasingly popular approach to the management and analysis of qualitative data in health research. However, there is confusion about its potential application and limitations. Discussion. The article discusses when it is appropriate to adopt the Framework Method and explains the procedure for using it in multi-disciplinary health research teams, or those that involve clinicians, patients and lay people. The stages of the method are illustrated using examples from a published study. Summary. Used effectively, with the leadership of an experienced qualitative researcher, the Framework Method is a systematic and flexible approach to analysing qualitative data and is appropriate for use in research teams even where not all members have previous experience of conducting qualitative research.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Ritchie J, Lewis J: Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage; 2003.
    • 2. Ives J, Damery S, Redwod S: PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who's sailing the ship? J Med Ethics 2013, 39(3):181-185.
    • 3. Heath G, Cameron E, Cummins C, Greenfield S, Pattison H, Kelly D, Redwood S: Paediatric 'care closer to home': stake-holder views and barriers to implementation. Health Place 2012, 18(5):1068-1073.
    • 4. Elkington H, White P, Addington-Hall J, Higgs R, Petternari C: The last year of life of COPD: a qualitative study of symptoms and services. Respir Med 2004, 98(5):439-445.
    • 5. Murtagh J, Dixey R, Rudolf M: A qualitative investigation into the levers and barriers to weight loss in children: opinions of obese children. Archives Dis Child 2006, 91(11):920-923.
    • 6. Barnard M, Webster S, O'Connor W, Jones A, Donmall M: The drug treatment outcomes research study (DTORS): qualitative study. London: Home Office; 2009.
    • 7. Ayatollahi H, Bath PA, Goodacre S: Factors influencing the use of IT in the emergency department: a qualitative study. Health Inform J 2010, 16(3):189-200.
    • 8. Sheard L, Prout H, Dowding D, Noble S, Watt I, Maraveyas A, Johnson M: Barriers to the diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study. Palliative Med 2012, 27(2):339-348.
    • 9. Ellis J, Wagland R, Tishelman C, Williams ML, Bailey CD, Haines J, Caress A, Lorigan P, Smith JA, Booton R, et al: Considerations in developing and delivering a nonpharmacological intervention for symptom management in lung cancer: the views of patients and informal caregivers. J Pain Symptom Manag (0) 2012, 44(6):831-842.
    • 10. Gale N, Sultan H: Telehealth as 'peace of mind': embodiment, emotions and the home as the primary health space for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder. Health place 2013, 21:140-147.
    • 11. Rashidian A, Eccles MP, Russell I: Falling on stony ground? A qualitative study of implementation of clinical guidelines' prescribing recommendations in primary care. Health policy 2008, 85(2):148-161.
    • 12. Jones RK: The unsolicited diary as a qualitative research tool for advanced research capacity in the field of health and illness. Qualitative Health Res 2000, 10(4):555-567.
    • 13. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Analysing qualitative data. British Med J 2000, 320:114-116.
    • 14. Pope C, Mays N: Critical reflections on the rise of qualitative research. British Med J 2009, 339:737-739.
    • 15. Fairclough N: Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London: Longman; 2010.
    • 16. Garfinkel H: Ethnomethodology's program. Soc Psychol Quarter 1996, 59(1):5-21.
    • 17. Merleau-Ponty M: The phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1962.
    • 18. Svenaeus F: The phenomenology of health and illness. In Handbook of phenomenology and medicine. Netherlands: Springer; 2001:87-108.
    • 19. Reissmann CK: Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: Sage; 2008.
    • 20. Charmaz K: Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006.
    • 21. Glaser A, Strauss AL: The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.
    • 22. Crotty M: The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage; 1998.
    • 23. Boeije H: A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Qual Quant 2002, 36(4):391-409.
    • 24. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005, 15(9):1277-1288.
    • 25. Redwood S, Gale NK, Greenfield S: 'You give us rangoli, we give you talk': using an art-based activity to elicit data from a seldom heard group. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12(1):7.
    • 26. Mishler EG: The struggle between the voice of medicine and the voice of the lifeworld. In The sociology of health and illness: critical perspectives. Thirdth edition. Edited by Conrad P, Kern R. New York: St Martins Press; 1990.
    • 27. Hodges BD, Kuper A, Reeves S: Discourse analysis. British Med J 2008, 337:570-572.
    • 28. Sandelowski M, Barroso J: Writing the proposal for a qualitative research methodology project. Qual Health Res 2003, 13(6):781-820.
    • 29. Ellins J: It's better together: involving older people in research. HSMC Newsletter Focus Serv Users Publ 2010, 16(1):4.
    • 30. Phillimore J, Goodson L, Hennessy D, Ergun E: Empowering Birmingham's migrant and refugee community organisations: making a difference. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2009.
    • 31. Leamy M, Clough R: How older people became researchers. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2006.
    • 32. Glasby J, Miller R, Ellins J, Durose J, Davidson D, McIver S, Littlechild R, Tanner D, Snelling I, Spence K: Understanding and improving transitions of older people: a user and carer centred approach, Final report NIHR service delivery and organisation programme. London: The Stationery Office; 2012.
    • 33. SaldaƱa J: The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage; 2009.
    • 34. Lincoln YS: Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qual Inquiry 1995, 1(3):275-289.
    • 35. Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ British Med J 2000, 320(7226):50.
    • 36. Seale C: Quality in qualitative research. Qual Inquiry 1999, 5(4):465-478.
    • 37. Dingwall R, Murphy E, Watson P, Greatbatch D, Parker S: Catching goldfish: quality in qualitative research. J Health serv Res Policy 1998, 3(3):167-172.
    • 38. Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G: Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res 1998, 8(3):341-351.
    • 39. Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J: Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods 2008, 1(2):13-22.
    • 40. Smith JA: Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2004, 1(1):39-54.
    • 41. Polit DF, Beck CT: Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. Int J Nurs Studies 2010, 47(11):1451-1458.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article