• KANAD
  • Contact us
  • E-Submission

J Korean Acad Nurs Adm : Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration

OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button
Search
Advanced Search
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Articles

Page Path

Original Article

Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration (First publication to the end of 2016)

Kwang-Ok Park1, Soyoung Yu2, Eunhee Lee3, Jee-In Hwang4, Miyoung Kim5
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration 2017;23(4):427-438.
Published online: September 17, 2017

1Department of Nursing, College of Life Science and National Resources, Sunchon National University

2College of Nursing, CHA University

3Division of Nursing, Hallym University

4College of Nursing Science, Kyung Hee University

5College of Nursing, Ewha Womans University

Corresponding author: Kim, Miyoung, College of Nursing, Ewha Womans University, 52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3277-6694, Fax: +82-2-3277-2850, E-mail: mykim0808@ewha.ac.kr
• Received: August 14, 2017   • Revised: September 11, 2017   • Accepted: September 15, 2017

Copyright © 2017 Korean Academy of Nursing Administration

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 16 Views
  • 0 Download
  • 2 Crossref
prev next

Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF
  • Purpose:
    This study was done to analyze qualitative research published in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration (JKANA).
  • Methods:
    Selected studies included 38 qualitative studies in which an interview was used and which were published in JKANA from 1995 to 2016 (22 years). Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ), a reporting guideline for analysis of qualitative research was employed.
  • Results:
    Items that were included in less than half of the selected studies were as follows: interviewers’ credentials, occupation, gender, and relationship established with participants in the 1st domain; non-participants, presence of non-participants, and transcripts returned in the 2nd domain; participant checking in the 3rd domain.
  • Conclusion:
    Findings indicate that future challenges face JKANA qualitative researchers. First, the expansion of qualitative research should be ensured to explain complex interaction between humans and the environment. Second, a variety of qualitative research methods should be considered to enhance understanding of nursing fields. Third, research procedures should be described more precisely to increase transparency of research results. Fourth, not only personal information on the researcher but also how subjective opinions of the researcher reflected in the research process should be explained in detail to clarify the relationship between researchers and participants.
  • Key Words: Qualitative research; Nursing; Publishing
Table 1.
General Characteristics of Qualitative Research (N=38)
Characteristics Categories n(%) M±SD Min Max
Year of publication 1995 2 (5.3) 1.73±0.68 1 6
1996 1 (2.6)
2001 1 (2.6)
2002 2 (5.3)
2003 2 (5.3)
2004 1 (2.6)
2005 1 (2.6)
2007 3 (7.9)
2008 2 (5.3)
2009 4 (10.5)
2011 1 (2.6)
2012 3 (7.9)
2013 5 (13.2)
2014 6 (15.8)
2015 1 (2.6)
2016 3 (7.9)
Participants Nurse 32 (84.2)
Patient 3 (7.9)
Lay person, adult 3 (7.9)
Method of data collection Interview 27 (71.1)
Interview+participant observation 3 (7.9)
Interview+journaling 1 (2.6)
Interview+field note 1 (2.6)
Interview+historical document 1 (2.6)
Interview+historical document+picture+diary 1 (2.6)
Individual interview+focus group interview 2 (5.3)
Focus group interview 2 (5.3)
Period of data collection (month) 4.53 1 11
Table 2.
Domain 1: Research Team and Reflexivity (N=38)
Items Categories n(%)
Personal 1. Interviewer/Facilitator Single research 7(18.4)
characteristics Joint research Stated 9 (29.0)
Not stated 22 (71.0)
2. Credentials Stated 9 (23.7)
Not stated 29 (76.3)
3. Occupation Stated 6 (15.8)
Not stated 32 (84.2)
4. Gender Stated 0(0.0)
5. Experience and training Stated 24 (63.2)
Not stated 14 (36.8)
6. Relationship established Stated 10 (26.3)
Relationship with Not stated 28 (73.7)
  participants 7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer Stated 38(100.0)
8. Interviewer characteristics Stated 23 (60.5)
Not stated 15 (39.5)
Table 3.
Domain 2: Study Design (N=38
Items Categories n(%) M±SD Min Max
Theoretical 9. Methodological Phenomenology 15 (39.4)
  framework orientation and theory Grounded theory 11 (28.9)
Ethnography 2 (5.3)
Focus group interview 3 (7.9)
Qualitative thematic analysis 2 (5.3)
Oral history study 2 (5.3)
Content analysis 3 (7.9)
Participant 10. Sampling Purposive 6 (15.8)
Convenience 21 (55.3)
Snowballing 2 (5.3)
Others (Two or more) 8 (21.0)
Not stated 1 (2.6)
11. Method of approach Face-to-face 25 (86.2)
Mail 2 (6.9)
Phone 2 (6.9)
12. Sample size Stated 24(100.0) 12.24±5.82 5 36
13. Non-participation Stated 4 (10.5)
Not stated 34 (89.5)
Setting 14. Setting for data collection Stated 33 (86.8)
Not stated 5 (13.2)
15. Presence of non-participants Stated 5 (13.2)
Not stated 33 (86.8)
16. Description of sample Stated 38(100.0)
Data 17. Interview guide Question with guide 9 (23.7)
  collection Question without guide 25 (65.8)
Not stated 4 (10.5)
18. Repeat interviews Stated 29 (76.3)
Not stated 9 (23.7)
19. Audio / visual recording Stated 38(100.0)
20. Field notes Stated 21 (55.3)
Not stated 17 (44.7)
21. Duration Stated 35 (92.1)
No stated 3 (7.9)
22. Data saturation Stated 28 (73.7)
Not stated 10 (27.3)
23. Transcripts returned Stated 16 (42.1)
Not stated 22 (57.9)
Table 4.
Domain 3: Analysis and Findings (N=38)
Items Categories n(%)
Data analysis 24. Number of data coders Stated 19 (50.0)
Not stated 19 (50.0)
25. Description of the coding tree Stated 36 (94.7)
Not stated 2 (5.3)
26. Derivation of themes Derived from the data 38(100.0)
27. Software use Not used 38(100.0)
28. Participant checking Stated 18 (47.4)
Not stated 20 (52.6)
Reporting 29. Quotations presented Stated 35 (92.1)
Not stated 3 (7.9)
30. Data and findings consistent Consistent 38(100.0)
31. Clarity of minor themes Clear 36 (94.7)
Not clear 2 (5.3)
32. Clarity of minor themes Clear 26 (68.4)
Not clear 12 (31.6)
  • 1. Koh MS, Ha NS. Review of the Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society and its research trends. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2001;7:561-569.
  • 2. Kim JK, Jung MS, Jang KS, Kim JY, Lee HJ, Kim EK, et al. Analysis of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration for 3 years (2007-2009). Journal of Korean Acad- emy of Nursing Administration. 2010;16:517-626. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2010.16.4.617.
  • 3. Jang KS, Kim BN, Kim YM, Kim JS, Jeong SH. Analysis of research articles published in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration for 3 years (2010-2012). Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2013;19(5):679-688. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2013.19.5.679.
  • 4. Lee TW, Park KO, Seomun GA, Kim M, Hwang J, Yu S, et al. Analysis of research articles published in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration for 3 years (2013-2015): The application of text network analysis. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2017;23(1):101-110. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2017.23.1.101.
  • 5. Seomun KA, Koh MS, Kim IA. Classification of keywords of the papers from the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration (2002-2006). Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2007;13:118-122.
  • 6. Jeong SH, Lee T, Yu S, Seo M. Analysis of manuscripts rejected by the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration [2012-2015 Jun]. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2015;21(5):561-574. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2015.21.5.561.
  • 7. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005.
  • 8. Park MH, Kang SJ. Analysis of the trend in qualitative research and future directions in Korean special education. Korean Journal of Physical, Multiple, & Health Disabilities. 2012;55(2):205-226.
  • 9. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.
  • 10. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
  • 11. O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000388.
  • 12. Blaschke S. The role of nature in cancer patients' lives: A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:370https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3366-6.
  • 13. Luker J, Lynch E, Bemhardsson S, Bennett L, Bemhardt J. Stroke survivors' experiences of physical rehabilitation: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2015;96(9):1698-1708. e1610.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.03.017.
  • 14. Lee EJ, Song JE, Kim M, Kim S, Jun EM, Ahn S, et al. Analysis on reports of qualitative researches published in Korean Jour- nal of Women Health Nursing. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2012;18(4):321-332. https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2012.18.4.321.
  • 15. Park HS, Kim YM. Analysis of qualitative research published by Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2015;22(4):442-451. https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2015.22.4.442.
  • 16. Kim YK, Hwang SY, Shin SJ. Analysis of qualitative research published by Korean Journal of Adult Nursing (1989-2011). Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2011;23(6):633-641.
  • 17. Nam KA. Analysis of qualitative research in psychiatric and mental health nursing. Journal of Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2014;23(4):311-321. https://doi.org/10.12934/jkpmhn.2014.23.4.311.
  • 18. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.
  • 19. Yarcheski A, Mahon NE, Yarcheski TJ. A descriptive study of research published in scientific nursing journals from 1985 to2010. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2012;49(9):1112-1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.03.004.
  • 20. Gagliardi AR, Umoquit M, Webster F, Dobrow M. Qualitative research publication rates in top-ranked nursing journals: 2002-2011. Nursing Research. 2014;63(3):221-227. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000022.
  • 21. Ball E, McLoughlin M, Darvill A. Plethora or paucity: A systematic search and bibliometric study of the application and design of qualitative methods in nursing research 2008-2010. Nurse Education Today. 2011;31(3):299-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.002.
  • 22. Shaw RL, Booth A, Sutton AJ, Miller T, Smith JA, Young B, et al. Finding qualitative research: An evaluation of search stra- tegies. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2004;4:5https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-5.
  • 23. Barusch A, Gringeri C, George M. Rigor in qualitative social work research: A review of strategies used in published articles. Social Work Research. 2011;35(1):11-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.1.11.
  • 24. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature XXIII. Qualitative Rresearch in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284(3):357-362. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.3.357.
  • 25. Simpson R. Masculinity at work: The experiences of men in female dominated occupation. Work, Employment and Society. 2004;18:349-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500172004042773.
  • 26. Kim M, Park GS, Windsor C. Marital power process of Korean men married to foreign women: A qualitative study. Nursing and Health Sciences. 2013;15:73-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2012.00738.x.
  • 27. Elder NC, William L. Reading and evaluating qualitative research studies. The Journal of Family Practice. 1995;41:279-285.
  • 28. Kim YS. Patterns and trends of qualitative research in Korean Social Studies Education. Social Studies Education. 2011;50(4):1-16.
  • 29. Denzin NK. Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
  • 30. Pearson A, Jordan Z, Lockwood C, Aromataris E. Notions of quality and standards for qualitative research reporting. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 2015;21(5):670-676. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12331.

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Future Outlook of Nursing Management Research: Analysis of Articles Published in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration from 2012-2021
      Eungyung Kim, Sung-Hyun Cho, Jihyun Kim, Jong Kyung Kim, Eunhee Lee
      Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration.2023; 29(5): 553.     CrossRef
    • Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in Korean Journal of Occupational Therapy
      Seul-Gee Kim, Kyoung-Hee Park, Tae-Hong Park, Hee-Soo Lim
      Journal of Korean Society of Occupational Therapy.2019; 27(3): 1.     CrossRef

    Download Citation

    Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

    Format:

    Include:

    Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration (First publication to the end of 2016)
    J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2017;23(4):427-438.   Published online September 30, 2017
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2017.23.4.427
    Download Citation
    Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
    Format:
    • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
    • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
    Include:
    • Citation for the content below
    Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration (First publication to the end of 2016)
    J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2017;23(4):427-438.   Published online September 30, 2017
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2017.23.4.427
    Close

    Related articles

    Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration (First publication to the end of 2016)
    Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration (First publication to the end of 2016)

    General Characteristics of Qualitative Research (N=38)

    Characteristics Categories n(%) M±SD Min Max
    Year of publication 1995 2 (5.3) 1.73±0.68 1 6
    1996 1 (2.6)
    2001 1 (2.6)
    2002 2 (5.3)
    2003 2 (5.3)
    2004 1 (2.6)
    2005 1 (2.6)
    2007 3 (7.9)
    2008 2 (5.3)
    2009 4 (10.5)
    2011 1 (2.6)
    2012 3 (7.9)
    2013 5 (13.2)
    2014 6 (15.8)
    2015 1 (2.6)
    2016 3 (7.9)
    Participants Nurse 32 (84.2)
    Patient 3 (7.9)
    Lay person, adult 3 (7.9)
    Method of data collection Interview 27 (71.1)
    Interview+participant observation 3 (7.9)
    Interview+journaling 1 (2.6)
    Interview+field note 1 (2.6)
    Interview+historical document 1 (2.6)
    Interview+historical document+picture+diary 1 (2.6)
    Individual interview+focus group interview 2 (5.3)
    Focus group interview 2 (5.3)
    Period of data collection (month) 4.53 1 11

    Domain 1: Research Team and Reflexivity (N=38)

    Items Categories n(%)
    Personal 1. Interviewer/Facilitator Single research 7(18.4)
    characteristics Joint research Stated 9 (29.0)
    Not stated 22 (71.0)
    2. Credentials Stated 9 (23.7)
    Not stated 29 (76.3)
    3. Occupation Stated 6 (15.8)
    Not stated 32 (84.2)
    4. Gender Stated 0(0.0)
    5. Experience and training Stated 24 (63.2)
    Not stated 14 (36.8)
    6. Relationship established Stated 10 (26.3)
    Relationship with Not stated 28 (73.7)
      participants 7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer Stated 38(100.0)
    8. Interviewer characteristics Stated 23 (60.5)
    Not stated 15 (39.5)

    Domain 2: Study Design (N=38

    Items Categories n(%) M±SD Min Max
    Theoretical 9. Methodological Phenomenology 15 (39.4)
      framework orientation and theory Grounded theory 11 (28.9)
    Ethnography 2 (5.3)
    Focus group interview 3 (7.9)
    Qualitative thematic analysis 2 (5.3)
    Oral history study 2 (5.3)
    Content analysis 3 (7.9)
    Participant 10. Sampling Purposive 6 (15.8)
    Convenience 21 (55.3)
    Snowballing 2 (5.3)
    Others (Two or more) 8 (21.0)
    Not stated 1 (2.6)
    11. Method of approach Face-to-face 25 (86.2)
    Mail 2 (6.9)
    Phone 2 (6.9)
    12. Sample size Stated 24(100.0) 12.24±5.82 5 36
    13. Non-participation Stated 4 (10.5)
    Not stated 34 (89.5)
    Setting 14. Setting for data collection Stated 33 (86.8)
    Not stated 5 (13.2)
    15. Presence of non-participants Stated 5 (13.2)
    Not stated 33 (86.8)
    16. Description of sample Stated 38(100.0)
    Data 17. Interview guide Question with guide 9 (23.7)
      collection Question without guide 25 (65.8)
    Not stated 4 (10.5)
    18. Repeat interviews Stated 29 (76.3)
    Not stated 9 (23.7)
    19. Audio / visual recording Stated 38(100.0)
    20. Field notes Stated 21 (55.3)
    Not stated 17 (44.7)
    21. Duration Stated 35 (92.1)
    No stated 3 (7.9)
    22. Data saturation Stated 28 (73.7)
    Not stated 10 (27.3)
    23. Transcripts returned Stated 16 (42.1)
    Not stated 22 (57.9)

    Domain 3: Analysis and Findings (N=38)

    Items Categories n(%)
    Data analysis 24. Number of data coders Stated 19 (50.0)
    Not stated 19 (50.0)
    25. Description of the coding tree Stated 36 (94.7)
    Not stated 2 (5.3)
    26. Derivation of themes Derived from the data 38(100.0)
    27. Software use Not used 38(100.0)
    28. Participant checking Stated 18 (47.4)
    Not stated 20 (52.6)
    Reporting 29. Quotations presented Stated 35 (92.1)
    Not stated 3 (7.9)
    30. Data and findings consistent Consistent 38(100.0)
    31. Clarity of minor themes Clear 36 (94.7)
    Not clear 2 (5.3)
    32. Clarity of minor themes Clear 26 (68.4)
    Not clear 12 (31.6)
    Table 1. General Characteristics of Qualitative Research (N=38)

    Table 2. Domain 1: Research Team and Reflexivity (N=38)

    Table 3. Domain 2: Study Design (N=38

    Table 4. Domain 3: Analysis and Findings (N=38)

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Table 3.

    Table 4.

    J Korean Acad Nurs Adm : Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration

    ABOUT

    BROWSE ARTICLES 

    EDITORIAL POLICY

    FOR CONTRIBUTORS  

    © Korean Academy of Nursing Administration.
    TOP