Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jun 20;3(6):e002889.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002889.

What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review

A O'Cathain  1 , K J Thomas, S J Drabble, A Rudolph, J Hewison
Affiliations

What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review

A O'Cathain et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: To develop an empirically based framework of the aspects of randomised controlled trials addressed by qualitative research.

Design: Systematic mapping review of qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Data sources: MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment, PsycINFO, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and ASSIA.

Eligibility criteria: Articles reporting qualitative research undertaken with trials published between 2008 and September 2010; health research, reported in English.

Results: 296 articles met the inclusion criteria. Articles focused on 22 aspects of the trial within five broad categories. Some articles focused on more than one aspect of the trial, totalling 356 examples. The qualitative research focused on the intervention being trialled (71%, 254/356); the design, process and conduct of the trial (15%, 54/356); the outcomes of the trial (1%, 5/356); the measures used in the trial (3%, 10/356); and the target condition for the trial (9%, 33/356). A minority of the qualitative research was undertaken at the pretrial stage (28%, 82/296). The value of the qualitative research to the trial itself was not always made explicit within the articles. The potential value included optimising the intervention and trial conduct, facilitating interpretation of the trial findings, helping trialists to be sensitive to the human beings involved in trials, and saving money by steering researchers towards interventions more likely to be effective in future trials.

Conclusions: A large amount of qualitative research undertaken with specific trials has been published, addressing a wide range of aspects of trials, with the potential to improve the endeavour of generating evidence of effectiveness of health interventions. Researchers can increase the impact of this work on trials by undertaking more of it at the pretrial stage and being explicit within their articles about the learning for trials and evidence-based practice.

Keywords: Clinical trials < THERAPEUTICS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of references identified for qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials between 2001 and 2009.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The PRISMA flow diagram for articles 2008–2010. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Framework of the focus of qualitative research used in trials.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Potential value of the qualitative research to the generation of evidence of effectiveness.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000;321:694–6 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Campbell N, Murray E, Darbyshire J, et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ 2007;334:455–9 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:979–83 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, et al. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ 2006;332:413–16 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bradley F, Wiles R, Kinmonth AL, et al. Development and evaluation of complex interventions in health services research: case study of the Southampton heart integrated care project (SHIP). BMJ 1999;318:711–15 - PMC - PubMed