Scholarlink

Background <p>Scientific studies in general are expected to demonstrate relevance beyond their immediate study context. Despite decades of debate about generalisation, little empirical evidence exists regarding how qualitative health researchers formulate and justify general claims. At the same time, qualitative publication output has grown substantially, alongside an increasing reliance on evidence syntheses, heightening the need for transparent and well-founded generalisations. This study examines how contemporary qualitative interview studies within health research articulates, moderates and justifies generalisations.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a mapping study of qualitative interview-based health articles published in English in 2024 and indexed in PubMed. We selected the 50 most recent studies using predefined criteria. We extracted information on study aims, sampling strategies, sample characteristics and the presence and formulation of generalising statements. We assessed interpretive consistency by examining alignment between aims, methods, findings and conclusions. Our analysis combined quantitative categorisation with qualitative examination of how authors expressed and justified generalisation, including the linguistic strategies used to moderate or extend their conclusions.</p> Results <p>All included studies engaged in some form of generalisation. Only a minority explicitly delimited the scope of their claims, and 32% were judged to offer generalisations that were adequately justified. Overgeneralisation were most frequent in sections addressing implications for practice, where authors commonly exceeded the limitations they had stated elsewhere. Justifiable generalisations were typically associated with realistic aims, clear acknowledgement of limitations, use of moderating language and, in some cases, broader or more diverse samples. Unjustified generalisations often involved vague phrasing, unclear attribution of claims or statements that blurred the distinction between study findings and existing literature.</p> Conclusions <p>Interview based qualitative health studies routinely generalise, and many do so in ways that extend beyond their empirical basis. Though cautiousness is often demonstrated when discussing findings, it is often absent when proposing recommendations for practice or policy. Given the growing importance of qualitative evidence syntheses, ensuring interpretive consistency and appropriately moderated general claims is essential for strengthening the methodological quality and practical value of qualitative health research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Is current qualitative health research useful? Generalisation practices in qualitative interview studies in health research

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月28日

查看全文
  • Benedicte Carlsen,
  • Hanne Riese

摘要

Background

Scientific studies in general are expected to demonstrate relevance beyond their immediate study context. Despite decades of debate about generalisation, little empirical evidence exists regarding how qualitative health researchers formulate and justify general claims. At the same time, qualitative publication output has grown substantially, alongside an increasing reliance on evidence syntheses, heightening the need for transparent and well-founded generalisations. This study examines how contemporary qualitative interview studies within health research articulates, moderates and justifies generalisations.

Methods

We conducted a mapping study of qualitative interview-based health articles published in English in 2024 and indexed in PubMed. We selected the 50 most recent studies using predefined criteria. We extracted information on study aims, sampling strategies, sample characteristics and the presence and formulation of generalising statements. We assessed interpretive consistency by examining alignment between aims, methods, findings and conclusions. Our analysis combined quantitative categorisation with qualitative examination of how authors expressed and justified generalisation, including the linguistic strategies used to moderate or extend their conclusions.

Results

All included studies engaged in some form of generalisation. Only a minority explicitly delimited the scope of their claims, and 32% were judged to offer generalisations that were adequately justified. Overgeneralisation were most frequent in sections addressing implications for practice, where authors commonly exceeded the limitations they had stated elsewhere. Justifiable generalisations were typically associated with realistic aims, clear acknowledgement of limitations, use of moderating language and, in some cases, broader or more diverse samples. Unjustified generalisations often involved vague phrasing, unclear attribution of claims or statements that blurred the distinction between study findings and existing literature.

Conclusions

Interview based qualitative health studies routinely generalise, and many do so in ways that extend beyond their empirical basis. Though cautiousness is often demonstrated when discussing findings, it is often absent when proposing recommendations for practice or policy. Given the growing importance of qualitative evidence syntheses, ensuring interpretive consistency and appropriately moderated general claims is essential for strengthening the methodological quality and practical value of qualitative health research.