Quality of qualitative studies centred on patients in family practice: a systematic review.
Qualitative research is often used in the field of general medicine. Our objective was to evaluate the quality of published qualitative studies conducted using individual interviews or focus groups centred on patients monitored in general practice.



We have undertaken a review of the literature in the PubMed and Embase databases of articles up to February 2014. The selection criteria were qualitative studies conducted using individual interviews or focus groups, centred on patients monitored in general practice. The articles chosen were analysed and evaluated using a score established from the Relevance, Appropriateness, Transparency and Soundness (RATS) grid.



The average score of the 52 studies chosen was 28 out of 42. The criteria least often present were the description of the patients who chose not to participate in the study, the justification of the end of data collection, the discussion of the influence of the researchers and the discussion of the confidentiality of the data. The criteria most frequently described were an explicit research question, justified and in relation to existing knowledge, the agreement of the ethical committee and the presence of quotations. The number of studies and the score increased from year-to-year. The score was independent of the impact factor of the journal.



Even though the qualitative research was published in reviews with a low impact factor, our results suggest that this research responded to the quality criteria of the RATS grid. The evaluation scored using RATS could be useful for authors or reviewers and for literature reviews.
Department of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine of Clermont-Ferrand, University of Auvergne, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France, benoit.cambon@udamail.fr.
Benoit
B
Cambon
Department of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine of Clermont-Ferrand, University of Auvergne, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.|Perinatal period, Pregnancy, Environment, Medical Practices and Development (PEPRADE), Clermont University, University of Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Philippe
P
Vorilhon
Department of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine of Clermont-Ferrand, University of Auvergne, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Laurence
L
Michel
INSERM U1178, University Paris-Saclay, University of Paris-Sud, Villejuif, Paris, France.|Department of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine Pierre and Marie Curie, Sorbonne Universities, UPMC University Paris 06, Paris, France.
Jean-Sébastien
JS
Cadwallader
Department of General Practice, University Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, F-75018 Paris, France.|EA Recherche Clinique Coordonnée Ville-Hôpital, Méthodologies et Société (REMES), F-75018 Paris, France.
Isabelle
I
Aubin-Auger
Biostatistics Unit (Clinic Research and Innovation Department), University Hospital Clermont-Ferrand, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France and.
Bruno
B
Pereira
Department of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine of Clermont-Ferrand, University of Auvergne, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.|Clinical Investigation Center, INSERM CIC 501, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Hélène
H
Vaillant Roussel
D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000592:standards*; D005194:Family Practice; D017144:Focus Groups; D006801:Humans; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D036301:Qualitative Research; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards* / Q000639:trends
Focus group; general practice; individual interview; patients; qualitative research; review.