Search

Data analysis is one of the most important, yet least understood, stages of the qualitative research process. Through rigorous analysis, data can illuminate the complexity of human behavior, inform interventions, and give voice to people's lived experiences. While significant progress has been made in advancing the rigor of qualitative analysis, the process often remains nebulous. To better understand how our field conducts and reports qualitative analysis, we reviewed qualitative articles published in Health Education & Behavior between 2000 and 2015. Two independent reviewers abstracted information in the following categories: data management software, coding approach, analytic approach, indicators of trustworthiness, and reflexivity. Of the 48 ( n = 48) articles identified, the majority ( n = 31) reported using qualitative software to manage data. Double-coding transcripts was the most common coding method ( n = 23); however, nearly one third of articles did not clearly describe the coding approach. Although the terminology used to describe the analytic process varied widely, we identified four overarching trajectories common to most articles ( n = 37). Trajectories differed in their use of inductive and deductive coding approaches, formal coding templates, and rounds or levels of coding. Trajectories culminated in the iterative review of coded data to identify emergent themes. Few articles explicitly discussed trustworthiness or reflexivity. Member checks ( n = 9), triangulation of methods ( n = 8), and peer debriefing ( n = 7) were the most common procedures. Variation in the type and depth of information provided poses challenges to assessing quality and enabling replication. Greater transparency and more intentional application of diverse analytic methods can advance the rigor and impact of qualitative research in our field.

Qualitative methods help us understand context, explore new phenomena, identify new research questions, and uncover new models of change. To better understand how researchers in health education and health behavior use qualitative methods, we reviewed qualitative articles published in Health Education & Behavior from 2000 to 2015. We identified 48 articles that met our inclusion criteria and extracted information on the qualitative inquiry framework, use of theory, data collection methods, sampling strategy, general analysis approach, and reporting of results. Use of common qualitative inquiry frameworks was rare, with just one grounded theory study, five ethnographies, and one case study. No studies were framed using phenomenological or narrative inquiry approaches. Theory was used most commonly to select sensitizing constructs for analysis (41.7%) and to inform development of data collection instruments (27.1%). Interviews were the most common data collection method (66.7%), with focus groups next most common (39.6%). Sampling was typically purposive (87.5%), although often not labeled as such. Almost all (95.8%) the articles used quotes to illustrate themes and more than half (58.3%) used descriptors of magnitude (e.g., most, some) to report findings. The use of qualitative methods by health education and behavior researchers could be enriched with more intentional application of a broader range of inquiry frameworks. More deliberate application of a range of inquiry frameworks has the potential to broaden the types of research questions asked, application and generation of theory, study design, analytic strategies, and reporting of results.

Most public health researchers and practitioners agree that we need to accelerate our efforts to eliminate health disparities and promote health equity. The past two decades of research have provided a wealth of descriptive studies, both qualitative and quantitative, that describe the size, scale, and scope of health disparities, as well as the key determinants that affect disparities. We need, however, to shift more aggressively to action informed by this research and develop deeper understandings of how to shape multilevel interventions, influenced by theories across multiple levels of the social-ecologic framework. In this article, we discuss the promising opportunities for qualitative and health equity scholars to advance research and practice through the refinement, expansion, and application of rigorous, theoretically informed qualitative research. In particular, to advance work in the area of theory to inform health equity, we encourage researchers (a) to move toward thinking about mechanisms and theory-building and refining; (b) to explicitly incorporate theories at the social, organizational, community, and policy levels and consider how factors at these levels interact synergistically with factors at the individual and interpersonal levels;, ((c) consider how the social dimensions that have implications for health equity intersect and interact; and (d) develop and apply more community-engaged, assets-based, and action-oriented theories and frameworks.)

Qualitative methods have long been a part of health education research, but how qualitative approaches advance health equity has not been well described. Qualitative research is an increasingly important methodologic tool to use in efforts to understand, inform, and advance health equity. Qualitative research provides critical insight into the subjective meaning and context of health that can be essential for understanding where and how to intervene to inform health equity research and practice. We describe the larger context for this special theme issue of Health Education & Behavior, provide brief overviews of the 15 articles that comprise the issue, and discuss the promise of qualitative research that seeks to contextualize and illuminate answers to research questions in efforts to promote health equity. We highlight the critical role that qualitative research can play in considering and incorporating a diverse array of contextual information that is difficult to capture in quantitative research.

Lay Health Advisor (LHA) programs hold tremendous promise for reducing health disparities and addressing social determinants of health in medically underserved communities, including African American populations. Very little is understood about the capacity of LHAs in these roles and the broader contributions they make to their communities. This article seeks to address this gap by describing the characteristics and capacity of a sample of 76 female African American LHAs from a nationally disseminated evidence-based LHA program for breast and cervical cancer screening (The National Witness Project), as well as potential differences between cancer survivors and nonsurvivors who serve as LHAs. A conceptual model for understanding LHA capacity and contributions in underserved communities at the individual, social, and organizational levels is presented. We describe LHA experiences and characteristics (e.g., experiences of mistrust and discrimination, racial pride, sociodemographics), capacity at the individual level (e.g., psychological and physical health, health behaviors), capacity at the social level (e.g., social networks, social support), and capacity at the organizational level (e.g., role-related competencies, self-efficacy, leadership, role benefits/challenges). Data were obtained through interview-administered telephone surveys between 2010 and 2011. Findings highlight the critical capacity that LHAs bring to their communities and the importance of supporting LHAs to sustain these programs and to address racial/ethnic health disparities.

With the marked increase of the Latino population in the United States during the past 20 years, there has been growing interest in the social, cultural, and structural factors that may impede breast cancer screening among Latino women, especially among those subgroups that have been understudied. Acculturation and fatalism are central cultural constructs in these growing fields of research. However, there is great debate on the extent to which acculturation and fatalism affect breast cancer screening among Latinas relative to other social or structural factors or logistical barriers. Moreover, little theoretical work specifies or tests pathways between social, structural, and cultural determinants of screening. This study tests a theoretical model of social and structural (socioeconomic status and access to health care) and cultural factors (acculturation and fatalism) as correlates of mammography screening among Dominican Latinas, a group that has been understudied. The study expands prior work by examining other factors identified as potential impediments to mammography screening, specifically psychosocial (e.g., embarrassment, pain) and logistical (e.g., not knowing how to get a mammogram, cost) barriers. Interview-administered surveys were conducted with 318 Latinas from the Dominican Republic aged 40 years or older. Fatalistic beliefs were not associated with mammogram screening. Greater acculturation assessed as language use was associated with decreased screening. The strongest predictor of decreased screening was perceived barriers. Results highlight the importance of assessing various self-reported psychosocial and logistical barriers to screening. Possible avenues for screening interventions include intensifying public health campaigns and use of personalized messages to address barriers to screening. Results add to a limited body of research on Dominicans, who constitute the fifth largest Latino group in the United States., (© 2015 Society for Public Health Education.)

African Americans have a higher rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality than other racial/ethnic groups. This disparity is alarming given that CRC is largely preventable through the use of endoscopy (screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy), yet rates of CRC screening among African Americans is suboptimal. Only 48.9% of African Americans are screened for CRC through endoscopy or fecal occult blood testing. As such, researchers have focused their efforts on the prevention of CRC through patient navigation (PN) services for colonoscopy screening. Although PN has been successful in increasing colonoscopy screening rates, screening rates of navigated participants could still be improved. Thus, the purpose of this exploratory study was to understand why patients, who received PN services, did not complete a colonoscopy. Sixteen participants were interviewed to identify salient themes related to noncompletion of the colonoscopy procedure. Major themes identified included the following: a lack of knowledge about CRC; fear/anxiety about the procedure, including unknown expectations, fear of pain, and fear of cancer diagnosis; inadequate physician communication about CRC and the colonoscopy exam; and believing that cancer leads to death. Participants felt that greater communication and explanation from their physician might help allay their fears. Our findings also suggest that a universal approach to PN, even within culturally targeted interventions, may not be appropriate for all individuals. Future interventions should consider gender-specific navigation and combining PN with nonmedical interventions to address other identified barriers.

Understanding factors that promote or prevent adherence to recommended health behaviors is essential for developing effective health programs, particularly among lower income populations who carry a disproportionate burden of disease. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews (n = 64) with low-income Black and Latina women who shared the experience of requiring diagnostic follow-up after having a screening mammography with abnormal findings. We found that in addition to holding negative and fatalistic cancer-related beliefs, the social context of these women was largely defined by multiple challenges and major life stressors, factors that may interfere with their ability to attain health. Factors commonly mentioned included competing health issues, economic hardship, demanding caretaking responsibilities and relationships, insurance-related challenges, distrust of health care providers, and inflexible work policies. Black women also reported discrimination and medical mistrust, whereas Latinas experienced difficulties associated with immigration and social isolation. These results suggest that effective health interventions not only address change among individuals but must also change health care systems and social policies in order to reduce health disparities.