Going where other methods cannot: A systematic mapping review of 25 years of qualitative research in Otolaryngology. (21st August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mather, M.W.; Hamilton, D.; Robalino, S.; Rousseau, N.
• Is Part Of: Clinical otolaryngology. Volume 43:Number 6(2018)
• Page Start: 1443
• Page End: 1453
• Publication Date: 2018-08-21
• Subjects: decision‐making -- otolaryngology -- patient care -- patient‐reported outcome measures -- qualitative research; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; 617.51005
• DOI: 10.1111/coa.13200
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1749-4478

Abstract

Abstract : 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, PsycINFO 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.