What type of qualitative research design is used to understand the lived experience of people?

What type of qualitative research design is used to understand the lived experience of people?
When we speak about a qualitative research study, it’s easy to think there is one kind.

But just as with quantitative methods, there are actually many varieties of qualitative methods.

Similar to the way you can group usability testing methods, there are also a number of ways to segment qualitative methods.

A popular and helpful categorization separate qualitative methods into five groups: ethnography, narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory, and case study. John Creswell outlines these five methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design.

While the five methods generally use similar data collection techniques (observation, interviews, and reviewing text), the purpose of the study differentiates them—something similar with different types of usability tests. And like classifying different usability studies, the differences between the methods can be a bit blurry. Here are the five qualitative methods in more detail.

1. Ethnography

Ethnographic research is probably the most familiar and applicable type of qualitative method to UX professionals. In ethnography, you immerse yourself in the target participants’ environment to understand the goals, cultures, challenges, motivations, and themes that emerge. Ethnography has its roots in cultural anthropology where researchers immerse themselves within a culture, often for years! Rather than relying on interviews or surveys, you experience the environment first hand, and sometimes as a “participant observer.”

For example, one way of uncovering the unmet needs of customers is to “follow them home” and observe them as they interact with the product. You don’t come armed with any hypotheses to necessarily test; rather, you’re looking to find out how a product is used.

2. Narrative

The narrative approach weaves together a sequence of events, usually from just one or two individuals to form a cohesive story. You conduct in-depth interviews, read documents, and look for themes; in other words, how does an individual story illustrate the larger life influences that created it. Often interviews are conducted over weeks, months, or even years, but the final narrative doesn’t need to be in chronological order. Rather it can be presented as a story (or narrative) with themes, and can reconcile conflicting stories and highlight tensions and challenges which can be opportunities for innovation.

For example, a narrative approach can be an appropriate method for building a persona. While a persona should be built using a mix of methods—including segmentation analysis from surveys—in-depth interviews with individuals in an identified persona can provide the details that help describe the culture, whether it’s a person living with Multiple Sclerosis, a prospective student applying for college, or a working mom.

3. Phenomenological

When you want to describe an event, activity, or phenomenon, the aptly named phenomenological study is an appropriate qualitative method. In a phenomenological study, you use a combination of methods, such as conducting interviews, reading documents, watching videos, or visiting places and events, to understand the meaning participants place on whatever’s being examined. You rely on the participants’ own perspectives to provide insight into their motivations.

Like other qualitative methods, you don’t start with a well-formed hypothesis. In a phenomenological study, you often conduct a lot of interviews, usually between 5 and 25 for common themes, to build a sufficient dataset to look for emerging themes and to use other participants to validate your findings.

For example, there’s been an explosion in the last 5 years in online courses and training. But how do students engage with these courses? While you can examine time spent and content accessed using log data and even assess student achievement vis-a-vis in-person courses, a phenomenological study would aim to better understand the students experience and how that may impact comprehension of the material.

4. Grounded Theory

Whereas a phenomenological study looks to describe the essence of an activity or event, grounded theory looks to provide an explanation or theory behind the events. You use primarily interviews and existing documents to build a theory based on the data. You go through a series of open and axial coding techniques to identify themes and build the theory. Sample sizes are often also larger—between 20 to 60—with these studies to better establish a theory. Grounded theory can help inform design decisions by better understanding how a community of users currently use a product or perform tasks.

For example, a grounded theory study could involve understanding how software developers use portals to communicate and write code or how small retail merchants approve or decline customers for credit.

5. Case Study

Made famous by the Harvard Business School, even mainly quantitative researchers can relate to the value of the case study in explaining an organization, entity, company, or event. A case study involves a deep understanding through multiple types of data sources. Case studies can be explanatory, exploratory, or describing an event. The annual CHI conference has a peer-reviewed track dedicated to case studies.

For example, a case study of how a large multi-national company introduced UX methods into an agile development environment would be informative to many organizations.

Summary

The table below summarizes the differences between the five qualitative methods.

 Method  Focus
 Sample Size  Data Collection
Ethnography Context or culture  — Observation & interviews
 Narrative Individual experience & sequence  1 to 2 Stories from individuals & documents
 Phenomenological People who have experienced a phenomenon  5 to 25 Interviews
Grounded Theory Develop a theory grounded in field data  20 to 60 Interviews, then open and axial coding
 Case Study Organization, entity, individual, or event  — Interviews, documents, reports, observations

  1. Truog RD. Patients and doctors — the evolution of a relationship. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:581–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Elberse JE, Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW. Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives. Health Expect. 2011;14:225–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Santana MJ, Manalili K, Jolley RJ, Zelinsky S, Quan H, Lu M. How to practice person-centred care: a conceptual framework. Health Expect. 2018;21:429–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sticher L, Bonsack C. Peer support workers : a novel profession in psychiatry. Rev Med Suisse. 2017;13:1614–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. EBM: what it is and what it is not. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource. Bethesda: Food and Drug Administration (US); National Institutes of Health (US); 2016. Available at:-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338448/def-item/measurement/ site consulted May 13, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Germain N, Aballéa S, Smela-Lipinska B, Pisarczyk K, Keskes M, Toumi M. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials for Overactive Bladder: A Systematic Literature. Rev Value Health. 2018;21:S114.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M, Abetz L, Arnould B, Bayliss M, Crawford B, Rosa K. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(8):1087–96.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Food Drug Agency. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville; 2009.

  10. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14(8):967–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14(8):978–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Glaser BG. Strauss A1.The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Savage J. Ethnography and health care. BMJ. 2000;321:1400–2.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Giorgi A. The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. J Phenomenol Psychol. 2012;43:3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Moustakas C. Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 1994.

  17. Van Manen M. Phenomenology of practice: meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. New York: Routledge; 2016.

  18. Pedersen AHM, Rasmussen K, Grytnes R, Nielsen KJ. Collaboration and patient safety at an emergency department - a qualitative case study. J Health Organ Manag. 2018;32:25–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Aguinaldo JP. Qualitative analysis in gay men’s health research: comparing thematic, critical discourse, and conversation analysis. J Homosex. 2012;59:765–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Morse JM. Qualitative health research: creating a new discipline. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thorne S. Interpretive description: qualitative research for applied practice. New York and London: Routledge; 2016.

  22. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320:114–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Shuval K, Harker K, Roudsari B, Groce NE, Mills B, Siddiqi Z, et al. Is Qualitative Research Second Class Science? A Quantitative Longitudinal Examination of Qualitative Research in Medical Journals. PLoS One. 2011;6(2):e16937.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Braun V, Clarke V, Terry G. Chapter 7 thematic analysis. In: Antonia C, editor. Qualitative Research in Clinical and Health Psychology- Poul Rohleder: Lyons Palgrave Macmillan. Houdmills: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014.

  25. Booth A. Harnessing energies, resolving tensions: acknowledging a dual heritage for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2019;29(1):18–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mejdahl CT, Schougaard LMV, Hjollund NH, Riiskjær E, Thorne S, Lomborg K. PRO-based follow-up as a means of self-management support - an interpretive description of the patient perspective. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;2:38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ploeg J, Matthew-Maich N, Fraser K, Dufour S, McAiney C, Kaasalainen S, et al. Managing multiple chronic conditions in the community: a Canadian qualitative study of the experiences of older adults, family caregivers and healthcare providers. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Sibeoni J, Manolios E, Verneuil L, Chanson P, Revah-Levy A. Patients’ perspectives on acromegaly diagnostic delay: a qualitative study. Eur J Endocrinol. 2019;180:339–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sibeoni J, Khannoussi W, Manolios E, Rebours V, Revah-Levy A, Ruszniewski P. Perspectives of patients and physicians about neuroendocrine tumors. A qualitative study. Oncotarget. 2018;9(18):14138–47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Orri M, Sibeoni J, Bousquet G, Labey M, Gueguen J, Laporte C, et al. Crossing the perspectives of patients, families, and physicians on cancer treatment: a qualitative study. Oncotarget. 2017;8(13):22113–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative Research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(6996):42–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Vrablik M, Catapano AL, Wiklund O, Qian Y, Rane P, Grove A. Martin ML understanding the patient perception of statin experience: a qualitative study. Adv Ther. 2019;3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-01073-7.

  33. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction: the discipline and practice of Qualitative research. Thousand Oaks:. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research: Sage; 2011.

  34. Pernecky T. 1. Introduction: Situating metaphysics and epistemology in qualitative research In: Pernecky T, Epistemology and metaphysics for qualitative research. London: Sage; 2016. p. 3–32.

  35. Mapp T. Understanding phenomenology: the lived experience. Br J Midwifery. 2008;16(5):308–11.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kant I. The Critique of Pure Reason, vol. 1781. New-York: Start; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Charmaz K. Teaching theory construction with initial grounded theory tools: a reflection on lessons and learning. Qual Health Res. 2015;25:1610–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Husserl E. The idea of phenomenology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pernecky T. 4. German idealism, Phenomenology, and Hermeneutics In: Pernecky T, Epistemology and metaphysics for qualitative research. London: Sage. 2016 p. 84–109.

  40. Colaizzi P. Psychological research as the phenomenologist’s view it. In: Vale R, King M, editors. Existential–phenomenological alternatives for psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1978. p. 48–71.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Revah-Levy A, Birmaher B, Gasquet I, Falissard B. The adolescent depression rating scale (ADRS): a validation study. BMC Psychiatry. 2007;7:2.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ramalho J de AM, Lachal J, Bucher-Maluschke JSNF, Moro M-R, Revah-Levy A A qualitative study of the role of food in family relationships: An insight into the families of Brazilian obese adolescents using photo elicitation Appetite 2016;96:539–545.

  43. Harf A, Skandrani S, Radjack R, Sibeoni J, Moro MR, Revah-Levy A. First parent-child meetings in international adoptions: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e75300.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Harf A, Skandrani S, Sibeoni J, Pontvert C, Revah-Levy A, Moro MR. Cultural identity and internationally adopted children: qualitative approach to parental representations. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119635.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Orri M, Paduanello M, Lachal J, Falissard B, Sibeoni J, Revah-Levy A. Qualitative approach to attempted suicide by adolescents and young adults: the (neglected) role of revenge. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96716.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Spodenkiewicz M, Speranza M, Taïeb O, Pham-Scottez A, Corcos M, Révah-Levy A. Living from day to day - qualitative study on borderline personality disorder in adolescence. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013;22(4):282–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Lachal J, Speranza M, Taïeb O, Falissard B, Lefèvre H. QUALIGRAMH, et al. qualitative research using photo-elicitation to explore the role of food in family relationships among obese adolescents. Appetite. 2012;58(3):1099–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Perier A, Revah-Levy A, Bruel C, Cousin N, Angeli S, Brochon S, et al. Phenomenologic analysis of healthcare worker perceptions of intensive care unit diaries. Crit Care. 2013;17(1):R13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Zahavi D. Getting it quite wrong: Van Manen and Smith on phenomenology. Qual Health Res. 2019;29:900–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Applebaum M. Moustakas’ Phenomenology: Husserlian? https://phenomenologyblog.com/?p=896 2013 Site consulted June 15 2020.

  51. Creswell JW, Hanson WE, Clark Plano VL, Morales A. Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. Couns Psychol. 2007;35(2):236–64.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Starks H, Brown TS. Choose your method: a comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qual Health Res. 2007;17:1372–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Tufford L, Newman P. Bracketing in qualitative research. Qual Soc Work. 2012;11:80–96.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Zahavi D. Applied phenomenology: why it is safe to ignore the epoché. Cont Philos Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-019-09463-y.

  56. Finlay L. Reflexivity: a practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2003.

  57. Birch SAJ, Bloom P. The curse of knowledge in reasoning about false beliefs. Psychol Sci. 2007;18:382–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hallihan GM, Shu LH. Considering confirmation Bias in design and design research. J Integr Des Process Sci. 2013;17:19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bradbury-Jones C, Isham L, Taylor J. The complexities and contradictions in participatory research with vulnerable children and young people: a qualitative systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2018;215:80–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Cowley A, Kerr M, Darby J, Logan P. Reflections on qualitative data analysis training for PPI partners and its implementation into practice. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5(1):22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Plato [Jowett B]. Meno. Dover edition. New York: Dover Publicationc, Inc; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Morin E. La méthode 3. La connaissance de la connaissance. Essais, Seuil; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Weber MB. What influences saturation? Estimating sample sizes in focus group research. Qual Health Res. 2019;29:1483–96.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Morse JM. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res. 1995;5:147–9.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kerr C, Nixon A, Wild D. Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10:269–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Ness L, Fusch P. Are We There Yet? - Data Saturation in Qualitative Research. Qual Rep. 2015;20(9):1:1408–16.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Dey I. Grounding grounded theory: guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Morse JM. Methods most frequently used in Qualitative Health research. In: Morse JM, editor. Qualitative health research: creating a new discipline. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2012. p. 84–9.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Sibeoni J, Costa-Drolon E, Poulmarc’h L, Colin S, Valentin M, Pradère J, et al. Photo-elicitation with adolescents in qualitative research: an example of its use in exploring family interactions in adolescent psychiatry. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2017;11:49.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Holloway I, Wheeler S. Ethical issues in qualitative nursing research. Nurs Ethics. 1995;2:223–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Harper D. Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation. Vis Stud. 17(1):13–26.

  73. Pain H. A literature review to evaluate the choice and use of visual methods. Int J Qual Methods. 2012;11(4):303–19.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Guillemin M, Drew S. Questions of process in participant-generated visual methodologies. Vis Stud. 2010;25(2):175–88.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Oliffe JL, Bottorff JL. Further than the eye can see? Photo elicitation and research with men. Qual Health Res. 2007;17(6):850–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Britten N. Qualitative research: qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ. 1995;311:251–3.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Mason J. Qualitative Interviewing: Asking, Listening and Interpreting. In: May T, editor. Qualitative Research in Action: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2002. p. 226–41. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209656.n10.

  78. Husserl E. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: an introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press; 1970.

  79. Park K-O, Park S-H, Yu M. Physicians’ experience of communication with nurses related to patient safety: a phenomenological study using the Colaizzi method. Asian Nurs Res. 2018;12(3):166–74.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 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(6):349–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Creswell JW, Miller DL. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract. 2000;39(3):124–31.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, Blythe J, Neville AJ. The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014;41:545–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Freeman D. Margaret Mead and Samoa : the making and unmaking of an anthropological myth: Australian National University Press; 1983.

  84. Brown C, Lloyd K. Qualitative methods in psychiatric research. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2001;7(5):350–6.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008;337:a288. https://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a288.

  86. Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Pope J. Measures of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma): Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Scleroderma HAQ (SHAQ), Physician- and Patient-Rated Global Assessments, Symptom Burden Index (SBI), University of California, Los Angeles, Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium Gastrointestinal Scale (UCLA SCTC GIT) 2.0, Baseline Dyspnea Index (BDI) and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) (Mahler’s Index), Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR), and Raynaud’s Condition Score (RCS). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(S11):S98–S111.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Sandqvist G, Eklund M. Hand mobility in scleroderma (HAMIS) test: the reliability of a novel hand function test. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;13(6):369–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Torok KS, Baker NA, Lucas M, Domsic RT, Boudreau R, Medsger TA. Reliability and validity of the delta finger-to-palm (FTP), a new measure of finger range of motion in systemic sclerosis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2010;28(2 Suppl 58):S28–36.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Rannou F, Poiraudeau S, Berezné A, et al. Assessing disability and quality of life in systemic sclerosis: construct validities of the Cochin hand function scale, health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), systemic sclerosis HAQ, and medical outcomes study 36-item short form health survey. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(1):94–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Poole JL, Gallegos M, O’Linc S. Reliability and validity of the arthritis hand function test in adults with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Arthritis Rheum. 2000;13(2):69–73.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Steen VD, Medsger TA. The value of the health assessment questionnaire and special patient-generated scales to demonstrate change in systemic sclerosis patients over time. Arthritis Rheum. 1997;40(11):1984–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Chularojanamontri L, Kulthanan K, Sethabutra P, Manapajon A. Dermatology life quality index in Thai patients with systemic sclerosis: A cross-sectional study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2011;77(6):683.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Heinberg LJ, Kudel I, White B, et al. Assessing body image in patients with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma): validation of the adapted satisfaction with appearance scale. Body Image. 2007;4(1):79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Jewett LR, Hudson M, Haythornthwaite JA, et al. Development and validation of the brief-satisfaction with appearance scale for systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62(12):1779–86.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Joachim G, Acorn S. Life with a rare chronic disease: the scleroderma experience. J Adv Nurs. 2003;42(6):598–606.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Milette K, Thombs BD, Dewez S, Körner A, Peláez S. Scleroderma patient perspectives on social support from close social relationships. Disabil Rehabil. 2019:1–11.

  98. Cinar FI, Unver V, Yilmaz S, et al. Living with scleroderma: patients’ perspectives, a phenomenological study. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32(11):3573–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Suarez-Almazor ME, Kallen MA, Roundtree AK, Mayes M. Disease and symptom burden in systemic sclerosis: a patient perspective. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(8):1718–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Newton EG, Thombs BD, Groleau D. The experience of emotional distress among women with scleroderma. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(9):1195–206.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Gumuchian ST, Peláez S, Delisle VC, et al. Exploring Sources of Emotional Distress among People Living with Scleroderma: A Focus Group Study. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152419 Assassi S, ed.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Mouthon L, Alami S, Boisard A-S, Chaigne B, Hachulla E, Poiraudeau S. Patients’ views and needs about systemic sclerosis and its management: a qualitative interview study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):230.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Stamm TA, Mattsson M, Mihai C, et al. Concepts of functioning and health important to people with systemic sclerosis: a qualitative study in four European countries. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(6):1074–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Matza LS, Patrick DL, Riley AW, Alexander JJ, Rajmil L, Pleil AM, et al. Pediatric patient-reported outcome instruments for research to support medical product labeling: report of the ISPOR PRO good research practices for the assessment of children and adolescents task force. Value Health. 2013;16:461–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Sibeoni J, Orri M, Podlipski M-A, Labey M, Campredon S, Gerardin P, et al. The experience of psychiatric Care of Adolescents with anxiety-based school refusal and of their parents: a qualitative study. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018;27:39–49.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Sibeoni J, Verneuil L, Poulmarc’h L, Orri M, Jean E, Podlipski M-A, et al. Obstacles and facilitators of therapeutic alliance among adolescents with anorexia nervosa, their parents and their psychiatrists: a qualitative study. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;25:16–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. DiGiuseppe R, Linscott J, Jilton R. Developing the thrapeutic alliance in child-adolescent psychotherapy. Appl Prev Psychol. 1996;15:85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Kermarrec S, Kabuth B, Bursztejn C, Guillemin F. French Adaptation and Validation of the Helping Alliance Questionnaires for Child, Parents, and Therapist. Can J Psychiatr. 2006;51:913–22 Seeing the unseen: diagnosing acromegaly in a dental setup.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Sibeoni J, Picard C, Orri M, Labey M, Bousquet G, Verneuil L, et al. Patients’ quality of life during active cancer treatment: a qualitative study. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:951.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Sibeoni J, Chambon L, Pommepuy N, Rappaport C, Revah-Levy A. Psychiatric care of children with autism spectrum disorder - what do their siblings think about it? A qualitative study. Autism. 2019;23:326–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Ooi KL, Ong YS, Jacob SA, Khan TM. A meta-synthesis on parenting a child with autism. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2016;12:745–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Roberts RM, Ejova A, Giallo R, Strohm K, Lillie ME. Support group programme for siblings of children with special needs: predictors of improved emotional and behavioural functioning. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38:2063–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Macquart-Moulin G, Viens P, Bouscary ML, Genre D, Resbeut M, Gravis G, Moatti JP. Discordance between physicians' estimations and breast cancer patients' self-assessment of side-effects of chemotherapy: an issue for quality of care. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(12):1640.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T, Barz A, Culkin A, et al. Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute common terminology criteria for adverse events: results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(11):903–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Di Maio M, Gallo C, Leighl NB, Piccirillo MC, Daniele G, Nuzzo F, Ceribelli A. Symptomatic toxicities experienced during anticancer treatment: agreement between patient and physician reporting in three randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(8):910–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Kohn L, Christiaens W. Les méthodes de recherches qualitatives dans la recherche en soins de santé : apports et croyances. Reflets et perspectives de la vie economique, vol. Tome LIII; 2014. p. 67–82.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Turow S, Gelsanliter D. The burden of proof, vol. 2. Farrar: Straus, and Giroux; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Rose, Todd. The end of average: how to succeed in a world that values sameness. Penguin UK, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  119. McVilly KR, Stancliffe RJ, Parmenter TR, Burton-Smith RM. Remaining open to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method designs: an unscientific compromise, or good research practice? Int Rev Res Ment Retard. 2008;35:151–203.

    Google Scholar 


Page 2

Skip to main content

From: A specific method for qualitative medical research: the IPSE (Inductive Process to analyze the Structure of lived Experience) approach

Transcript (excerpt) Words to be coded Descriptive units
Interviewer: What exactly is it that is complicated?
Woman: I have the impression that people look at my hands, they are strange, these hands...so I tend to hide them. I have the impression Have the impression
People are looking at my hands Looking at my hands
they are strange, these hands Strange hands
So I tend Tend
To hide them Hide my hands
Interviewer: I don’t understand, I’m sorry, you hide your hands because who is looking at them?
Woman: The people at work look at my hands The people at work colleagues
look at my hand Looking at my hands
Interviewer: The people at work in general or some people in particular?
Woman: Wait, I’m thinking, it’s more the women, finally I’m more often with women too, yes, it’s more the women Wait Wait
I’m thinking thinking
it’s more the women more the women
finally I’m more often with the women too Environment of women
it’s more the women, yes More the women
Interviewer: It’s different for you, that is, the gaze of another woman or of a man — you’re going to experience them differently?
Woman: Yes, yes I’m realizing that now, but it’s totally crazy, it’s that the women looking at me is going to bother me more, is going to be more ...be more… Yes, yes I’m just now realizing it Understand
now now
but it’s completely crazy ridiculous
It’s that a woman looking at me Women looking
bother me more be bothered
is more … be more … More the women
Interviewer: More?
Woman: I’m going to be more sensitive… but I don’t know why. You have the answer, because I don’t. I’m going to be more sensitive Hesitation
but I don’t know why be more sensitive to it
You have the response Not know why
because I don’t You have the response
  Not know why
Interviewer: No I don’t know either, you’re a woman yourself….
Woman: I have always had the impression that women observe more than men… or else, yeah, I have the impression that the women stare at me much more than men do. I’ve always had the impression Have the impression
that women observe more than men… Women observe more
or else Or else
yeah I have the impression that Have the impression
the women stare at me much more than the men
stare at me
More the women
Be stared at