Premium
Going where other methods cannot: A systematic mapping review of 25 years of qualitative research in Otolaryngology
Author(s) -
Mather M.W.,
Hamilton D.,
Robalino S.,
Rousseau N.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
clinical otolaryngology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.914
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1749-4486
pISSN - 1749-4478
DOI - 10.1111/coa.13200
Subject(s) - medicine , otorhinolaryngology , medical physics , general surgery , medical education , surgery
Objective To map the use of qualitative methods within otolaryngology, providing examples and identifying gaps in the literature. Design Systematic mapping review of journal‐based literature from 1990 to 2015 using Medline, Embase, Psyc INFO and CENTRAL . Included studies were categorised according to clinical subspecialty, research aims and qualitative approach. Results Of 4,061 identified articles, 388 were deemed relevant to qualitative research in ENT . The number of qualitative publications has risen markedly over the last 25 years ( r = 0.802), particularly since 2010. The most commonly used method was semi‐structured interviews 62.1% (241/388). Head and neck cancer (41.8% (162/388)) and otology (40.2% (156/388)) publish more qualitative research than rhinology (7.0% (27/388)) and laryngology (6.7% (26/388)). Conclusions Qualitative research in otolaryngology has increased over time, but laryngology and rhinology remain under‐represented. Most studies use interviews, underutilising the strengths of other qualitative methods. There is considerable scope for further application of qualitative methods in otolaryngology.