title: Academic impact of qualitative studies in healthcare: bibliometric analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Although qualitative studies are becoming more appreciated in healthcare, the number of publications of quality studies remains low. Little is known about the frequency and characteristics of citation in qualitative studies.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the academic impact of qualitative studies to that of two quantitative studies: systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials.
  
  
  METHODS
  Publications in BMJ between 1997 and 2006 (BMJ's median impact factor was 7.04 during this period) employing qualitative methods were matched to two quantitative studies appearing the same year using PubMed. Using Web of Science, citations within a 24-month publication period were determined. Additionally, three hypotheses were examined: qualitative studies are 1) infrequently cited in original articles or reviews; 2) rarely cited by authors in non-English-speaking countries; and 3) more frequently cited in non-medical disciplines (e.g., psychology or sociology).
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 121 qualitative studies, 270 systematic reviews, and 515 randomised controlled trials were retrieved. Qualitative studies were cited a total of 1,089 times, with a median of 7.00 times (range, 0-34) for each study. Matched systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were cited 2,411 times and 1,600 times, respectively. With respect to citing documents, original articles and reviews exceeded 60% for each study design. Relative to quantitative studies, qualitative studies were cited more often by authors in English-speaking countries. With respect to subject area, medical disciplines were more frequently cited than non-medical disciplines for all three study designs (>80%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The median number of citations for qualitative studies was almost the same as the median of BMJ's impact factor during the survey period. For a suitable evaluation of qualitative studies in healthcare, it will be necessary to develop a reporting framework and include explicit discussions of clinical implications when reporting findings. Coordination between researchers and editors will be needed to achieve this goal.
authors.affiliation: Department of Health Informatics, School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. hmori-kyt@umin.ac.jp
authors.forename: Hiroko
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Mori
authors.forename: Takeo
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Nakayama
mesh_terms: D015706:Bibliometrics; D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D036301:Qualitative Research; D015203:Reproducibility of Results