Enhancing the quality and transparency of qualitative research methods in health psychology

Affiliations

¹ Psychology Department, School of Life Science, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
² Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, UK.
³ Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
⁴ Health Psychology Section, Institute for Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College, London, UK.
⁵ Centre for Behavioural Science and Applied Psychology, Sheffield Hallam University, UK.

Editorial

Rachel L Shaw et al. Br J Health Psychol. 2019 Nov.

. 2019 Nov;24(4):739-745.

doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12393.

¹ Psychology Department, School of Life Science, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
² Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, UK.
³ Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
⁴ Health Psychology Section, Institute for Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College, London, UK.
⁵ Centre for Behavioural Science and Applied Psychology, Sheffield Hallam University, UK.

No abstract available

References

1. American Psychological Association (2019a, July 1). Journal Reporting Standards - Mixed Methods Research. Retrieved from https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/mixed-methods
1. American Psychological Association (2019b, July 1). Journal Reporting Standards - Qualitative Research. Retrieved from https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/qualitative
1. Bannister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1994). Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
1. Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ, 322, 1115-1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
1. Burr, V. (1998). Overview: Realism, relativism, social constructionism and discourse. In I. Parker (Ed.), Social constructionism, discourse and realism (pp. 13-26). London, UK: Sage.