Understand your pre-understandings.
While conducting qualitative research, it is paramount that the researcher maintains a vigilance of non-bias during analysis. In other words, did you remain aware of your pre-understandings, i.e., your own personal assumptions, professional background, and previous experiences and knowledge? For example, did you zero in on particular aspects of the interview on account of your profession (as an emergency doctor, emergency nurse, pre-hospital professional, etc.)? Did you assume the patient’s gender? Did your assumptions affect your analysis? How about aspects of culpability; did you assume that this patient was at fault or that this patient was a victim in the crash? Did this affect how you analysed the text?
Staying aware of one’s pre-understandings is exactly as difficult as it sounds. But, it is possible and it is requisite. Focus on putting yourself and your pre-understandings in a holding pattern while you approach your data with an openness and expectation of finding new perspectives. That is the key: expect the new and be prepared to be surprised. If something in your data feels unusual, is different from what you know, atypical, or even odd – don’t by-pass it as “wrong”. Your reactions and intuitive responses are letting you know that here is something to pay extra attention to, besides the more comfortable condensing and coding of more easily recognisable meaning units.
Intuition is a great asset in qualitative analysis and not to be dismissed as “unscientific”. Intuition results from tacit knowledge. Just as tacit knowledge is a hallmark of great clinicians [11] , [12] ; it is also an invaluable tool in analysis work [13] . Literally, take note of your gut reactions and intuitive guidance and remember to write these down! These notes often form a framework of possible avenues for further analysis and are especially helpful as you lift the analysis to higher levels of abstraction; from meaning units to condensed meaning units, to codes, to categories and then to the highest level of abstraction in content analysis, themes.
All too often, the novice gets overwhelmed by interview material that deals with the general subject matter of the interview, but doesn’t seem to answer the research question. Don’t be too quick to consider such text as off topic or dross [6] . There is often data that, although not seeming to match the study aim precisely, is still important for illuminating the problem area. This can be seen in our practical example about exploring patients’ experiences of being admitted into the emergency centre. Initially the participant is describing the accident itself. While not directly answering the research question, the description is important for understanding the context of the experience of being admitted into the emergency centre. It is very common that participants will “begin at the beginning” and prologue their narratives in order to create a context that sets the scene. This type of contextual data is vital for gaining a deepened understanding of participants’ experiences.
In our practical example, the participant begins by describing the crash and the rescue, i.e., experiences leading up to and prior to admission to the emergency centre. That is why we have chosen in our analysis to code the condensed meaning unit “Ambulance staff looked worried about all the blood” as “In the ambulance” and place it in the category “Reliving the rescue”. We did not choose to include this meaning unit in the categories specifically about admission to the emergency centre itself. Do you agree with our coding choice? Would you have chosen differently?
Another common problem for the novice is deciding how to code condensed meaning units when the unit can be labelled in several different ways. At this point researchers usually groan and wish they had thought to ask one of those classic follow-up questions like “Can you tell me a little bit more about that?” We have examples of two such coding conundrums in the exemplar, as can be seen in Table 3 (codes we conferred on) and Table 4 (codes we reached consensus on). Do you agree with our choices or would you have chosen different codes? Our best advice is to go back to your impressions of the whole and lean into your intuition when choosing codes that are most reasonable and best fit your data.
A typical problem area during categorisation, especially for the novice researcher, is overlap between content in more than one initial category, i.e., codes included in one category also seem to be a fit for another category. Overlap between initial categories is very likely an indication that the jump from code to category was too big, a problem not uncommon when the data is voluminous and/or very complex. In such cases, it can be helpful to first sort codes into narrower categories, so-called subcategories. Subcategories can then be reviewed for possibilities of further aggregation into categories. In the case of a problematic coding, it is advantageous to return to the meaning unit and check if the meaning unit itself fits the category or if you need to reconsider your preliminary coding.
It is not uncommon to be faced by thorny problems such as these during coding and categorisation. Here we would like to reiterate how valuable it is to have fellow researchers with whom you can discuss and reflect together with, in order to reach consensus on the best way forward in your data analysis. It is really advantageous to compare your analysis with meaning units, condensations, coding and categorisations done by another researcher on the same text. Have you identified the same meaning units? Do you agree on coding? See similar patterns in the data? Concur on categories? Sometimes referred to as “researcher triangulation,” this is actually a key element in qualitative analysis and an important component when striving to ensure trustworthiness in your study [14] . Qualitative research is about seeking out variations and not controlling variables, as in quantitative research. Collaborating with others during analysis lets you tap into multiple perspectives and often makes it easier to see variations in the data, thereby enhancing the quality of your results as well as contributing to the rigor of your study. It is important to note that it is not necessary to force consensus in the findings but one can embrace these variations in interpretation and use that to capture the richness in the data.
Yet there are times when neither openness, pre-understanding, intuition, nor researcher triangulation does the job; for example, when analysing an interview and one is simply confused on how to code certain meaning units. At such times, there are a variety of options. A good starting place is to re-read all the interviews through the lens of this specific issue and actively search for other similar types of meaning units you might have missed. Another way to handle this is to conduct further interviews with specific queries that hopefully shed light on the issue. A third option is to have a follow-up interview with the same person and ask them to explain.
It is important to remember that in a typical project there are several interviews to analyse. Codes found in a single interview serve as a starting point as you then work through the remaining interviews coding all material. Form your categories and themes when all project interviews have been coded.
When submitting an article with your study results, it is a good idea to create a table or figure providing a few key examples of how you progressed from the raw data of meaning units, to condensed meaning units, coding, categorisation, and, if included, themes. Providing such a table or figure supports the rigor of your study [1] and is an element greatly appreciated by reviewers and research consumers.
During the analysis process, it can be advantageous to write down your research aim and questions on a sheet of paper that you keep nearby as you work. Frequently referring to your aim can help you keep focused and on track during analysis. Many find it helpful to colour code their transcriptions and write notes in the margins.
Having access to qualitative analysis software can be greatly helpful in organising and retrieving analysed data. Just remember, a computer does not analyse the data. As Jennings [15] has stated, “… it is ‘peopleware,’ not software, that analyses.” A major drawback is that qualitative analysis software can be prohibitively expensive. One way forward is to use table templates such as we have used in this article. (Three analysis templates, Templates A, B, and C, are provided as supplementary online material ). Additionally, the “find” function in word processing programmes such as Microsoft Word (Redmond, WA USA) facilitates locating key words, e.g., in transcribed interviews, meaning units, and codes.
From our experience with content analysis we have learnt a number of important lessons that may be useful for the novice researcher. They are:
Peer review under responsibility of African Federation for Emergency Medicine.
Appendix A Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001 .
Qca explained simply (with examples).
By: Jenna Crosley (PhD). Reviewed by: Dr Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | February 2021
If you’re in the process of preparing for your dissertation, thesis or research project, you’ve probably encountered the term “ qualitative content analysis ” – it’s quite a mouthful. If you’ve landed on this post, you’re probably a bit confused about it. Well, the good news is that you’ve come to the right place…
Content analysis is a qualitative analysis method that focuses on recorded human artefacts such as manuscripts, voice recordings and journals. Content analysis investigates these written, spoken and visual artefacts without explicitly extracting data from participants – this is called unobtrusive research.
In other words, with content analysis, you don’t necessarily need to interact with participants (although you can if necessary); you can simply analyse the data that they have already produced. With this type of analysis, you can analyse data such as text messages, books, Facebook posts, videos, and audio (just to mention a few).
When working with content analysis, explicit and implicit content will play a role. Explicit data is transparent and easy to identify, while implicit data is that which requires some form of interpretation and is often of a subjective nature. Sounds a bit fluffy? Here’s an example:
Joe: Hi there, what can I help you with?
Lauren: I recently adopted a puppy and I’m worried that I’m not feeding him the right food. Could you please advise me on what I should be feeding?
Joe: Sure, just follow me and I’ll show you. Do you have any other pets?
Lauren: Only one, and it tweets a lot!
In this exchange, the explicit data indicates that Joe is helping Lauren to find the right puppy food. Lauren asks Joe whether she has any pets aside from her puppy. This data is explicit because it requires no interpretation.
On the other hand, implicit data , in this case, includes the fact that the speakers are in a pet store. This information is not clearly stated but can be inferred from the conversation, where Joe is helping Lauren to choose pet food. An additional piece of implicit data is that Lauren likely has some type of bird as a pet. This can be inferred from the way that Lauren states that her pet “tweets”.
As you can see, explicit and implicit data both play a role in human interaction and are an important part of your analysis. However, it’s important to differentiate between these two types of data when you’re undertaking content analysis. Interpreting implicit data can be rather subjective as conclusions are based on the researcher’s interpretation. This can introduce an element of bias , which risks skewing your results.
Now that you understand the difference between implicit and explicit data, let’s move on to the two general types of content analysis : conceptual and relational content analysis. Importantly, while conceptual and relational content analysis both follow similar steps initially, the aims and outcomes of each are different.
Conceptual analysis focuses on the number of times a concept occurs in a set of data and is generally focused on explicit data. For example, if you were to have the following conversation:
Marie: She told me that she has three cats.
Jean: What are her cats’ names?
Marie: I think the first one is Bella, the second one is Mia, and… I can’t remember the third cat’s name.
In this data, you can see that the word “cat” has been used three times. Through conceptual content analysis, you can deduce that cats are the central topic of the conversation. You can also perform a frequency analysis , where you assess the term’s frequency in the data. For example, in the exchange above, the word “cat” makes up 9% of the data. In other words, conceptual analysis brings a little bit of quantitative analysis into your qualitative analysis.
As you can see, the above data is without interpretation and focuses on explicit data . Relational content analysis, on the other hand, takes a more holistic view by focusing more on implicit data in terms of context, surrounding words and relationships.
There are three types of relational analysis:
Affect extraction is when you assess concepts according to emotional attributes. These emotions are typically mapped on scales, such as a Likert scale or a rating scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 is “very sad” and 5 is “very happy”.
If participants are talking about their achievements, they are likely to be given a score of 4 or 5, depending on how good they feel about it. If a participant is describing a traumatic event, they are likely to have a much lower score, either 1 or 2.
Proximity analysis identifies explicit terms (such as those found in a conceptual analysis) and the patterns in terms of how they co-occur in a text. In other words, proximity analysis investigates the relationship between terms and aims to group these to extract themes and develop meaning.
Proximity analysis is typically utilised when you’re looking for hard facts rather than emotional, cultural, or contextual factors. For example, if you were to analyse a political speech, you may want to focus only on what has been said, rather than implications or hidden meanings. To do this, you would make use of explicit data, discounting any underlying meanings and implications of the speech.
Lastly, there’s cognitive mapping, which can be used in addition to, or along with, proximity analysis. Cognitive mapping involves taking different texts and comparing them in a visual format – i.e. a cognitive map. Typically, you’d use cognitive mapping in studies that assess changes in terms, definitions, and meanings over time. It can also serve as a way to visualise affect extraction or proximity analysis and is often presented in a form such as a graphic map.
To recap on the essentials, content analysis is a qualitative analysis method that focuses on recorded human artefacts . It involves both conceptual analysis (which is more numbers-based) and relational analysis (which focuses on the relationships between concepts and how they’re connected).
Content analysis is a useful tool that provides insight into trends of communication . For example, you could use a discussion forum as the basis of your analysis and look at the types of things the members talk about as well as how they use language to express themselves. Content analysis is flexible in that it can be applied to the individual, group, and institutional level.
Content analysis is typically used in studies where the aim is to better understand factors such as behaviours, attitudes, values, emotions, and opinions . For example, you could use content analysis to investigate an issue in society, such as miscommunication between cultures. In this example, you could compare patterns of communication in participants from different cultures, which will allow you to create strategies for avoiding misunderstandings in intercultural interactions.
Another example could include conducting content analysis on a publication such as a book. Here you could gather data on the themes, topics, language use and opinions reflected in the text to draw conclusions regarding the political (such as conservative or liberal) leanings of the publication.
Conceptual and relational content analysis differ in terms of their exact process ; however, there are some similarities. Let’s have a look at these first – i.e., the generic process:
It’s always useful to begin a project with research questions , or at least with an idea of what you are looking for. In fact, if you’ve spent time reading this blog, you’ll know that it’s useful to recap on your research questions, aims and objectives when undertaking pretty much any research activity. In the context of content analysis, it’s difficult to know what needs to be coded and what doesn’t, without a clear view of the research questions.
For example, if you were to code a conversation focused on basic issues of social justice, you may be met with a wide range of topics that may be irrelevant to your research. However, if you approach this data set with the specific intent of investigating opinions on gender issues, you will be able to focus on this topic alone, which would allow you to code only what you need to investigate.
It’s vital that you reflect on your own pre-conception of the topic at hand and identify the biases that you might drag into your content analysis – this is called “ bracketing “. By identifying this upfront, you’ll be more aware of them and less likely to have them subconsciously influence your analysis.
For example, if you were to investigate how a community converses about unequal access to healthcare, it is important to assess your views to ensure that you don’t project these onto your understanding of the opinions put forth by the community. If you have access to medical aid, for instance, you should not allow this to interfere with your examination of unequal access.
Next, you need to operationalise your variables . But what does that mean? Simply put, it means that you have to define each variable or construct . Give every item a clear definition – what does it mean (include) and what does it not mean (exclude). For example, if you were to investigate children’s views on healthy foods, you would first need to define what age group/range you’re looking at, and then also define what you mean by “healthy foods”.
In combination with the above, it is important to create a coding scheme , which will consist of information about your variables (how you defined each variable), as well as a process for analysing the data. For this, you would refer back to how you operationalised/defined your variables so that you know how to code your data.
For example, when coding, when should you code a food as “healthy”? What makes a food choice healthy? Is it the absence of sugar or saturated fat? Is it the presence of fibre and protein? It’s very important to have clearly defined variables to achieve consistent coding – without this, your analysis will get very muddy, very quickly.
The next step is to code the data. At this stage, there are some differences between conceptual and relational analysis.
As described earlier in this post, conceptual analysis looks at the existence and frequency of concepts, whereas a relational analysis looks at the relationships between concepts. For both types of analyses, it is important to pre-select a concept that you wish to assess in your data. Using the example of studying children’s views on healthy food, you could pre-select the concept of “healthy food” and assess the number of times the concept pops up in your data.
Here is where conceptual and relational analysis start to differ.
At this stage of conceptual analysis , it is necessary to decide on the level of analysis you’ll perform on your data, and whether this will exist on the word, phrase, sentence, or thematic level. For example, will you code the phrase “healthy food” on its own? Will you code each term relating to healthy food (e.g., broccoli, peaches, bananas, etc.) with the code “healthy food” or will these be coded individually? It is very important to establish this from the get-go to avoid inconsistencies that could result in you having to code your data all over again.
On the other hand, relational analysis looks at the type of analysis. So, will you use affect extraction? Proximity analysis? Cognitive mapping? A mix? It’s vital to determine the type of analysis before you begin to code your data so that you can maintain the reliability and validity of your research .
First, let’s have a look at the process for conceptual analysis.
Once you’ve decided on your level of analysis, you need to establish how you will code your concepts, and how many of these you want to code. Here you can choose whether you want to code in a deductive or inductive manner. Just to recap, deductive coding is when you begin the coding process with a set of pre-determined codes, whereas inductive coding entails the codes emerging as you progress with the coding process. Here it is also important to decide what should be included and excluded from your analysis, and also what levels of implication you wish to include in your codes.
For example, if you have the concept of “tall”, can you include “up in the clouds”, derived from the sentence, “the giraffe’s head is up in the clouds” in the code, or should it be a separate code? In addition to this, you need to know what levels of words may be included in your codes or not. For example, if you say, “the panda is cute” and “look at the panda’s cuteness”, can “cute” and “cuteness” be included under the same code?
Once you’ve considered the above, it’s time to code the text . We’ve already published a detailed post about coding , so we won’t go into that process here. Once you’re done coding, you can move on to analysing your results. This is where you will aim to find generalisations in your data, and thus draw your conclusions .
Now let’s return to relational analysis.
As mentioned, you want to look at the relationships between concepts . To do this, you’ll need to create categories by reducing your data (in other words, grouping similar concepts together) and then also code for words and/or patterns. These are both done with the aim of discovering whether these words exist, and if they do, what they mean.
Your next step is to assess your data and to code the relationships between your terms and meanings, so that you can move on to your final step, which is to sum up and analyse the data.
To recap, it’s important to start your analysis process by reviewing your research questions and identifying your biases . From there, you need to operationalise your variables, code your data and then analyse it.
One of the main advantages of content analysis is that it allows you to use a mix of quantitative and qualitative research methods, which results in a more scientifically rigorous analysis.
For example, with conceptual analysis, you can count the number of times that a term or a code appears in a dataset, which can be assessed from a quantitative standpoint. In addition to this, you can then use a qualitative approach to investigate the underlying meanings of these and relationships between them.
Content analysis is also unobtrusive and therefore poses fewer ethical issues than some other analysis methods. As the content you’ll analyse oftentimes already exists, you’ll analyse what has been produced previously, and so you won’t have to collect data directly from participants. When coded correctly, data is analysed in a very systematic and transparent manner, which means that issues of replicability (how possible it is to recreate research under the same conditions) are reduced greatly.
On the downside , qualitative research (in general, not just content analysis) is often critiqued for being too subjective and for not being scientifically rigorous enough. This is where reliability (how replicable a study is by other researchers) and validity (how suitable the research design is for the topic being investigated) come into play – if you take these into account, you’ll be on your way to achieving sound research results.
In this post, we’ve covered a lot of ground – click on any of the sections to recap:
If you have any questions about qualitative content analysis, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like 1-on-1 help with your qualitative content analysis, be sure to book an initial consultation with one of our friendly Research Coaches.
This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...
If I am having three pre-decided attributes for my research based on which a set of semi-structured questions where asked then should I conduct a conceptual content analysis or relational content analysis. please note that all three attributes are different like Agility, Resilience and AI.
Thank you very much. I really enjoyed every word.
please send me one/ two sample of content analysis
send me to any sample of qualitative content analysis as soon as possible
Many thanks for the brilliant explanation. Do you have a sample practical study of a foreign policy using content analysis?
1) It will be very much useful if a small but complete content analysis can be sent, from research question to coding and analysis. 2) Is there any software by which qualitative content analysis can be done?
Common software for qualitative analysis is nVivo, and quantitative analysis is IBM SPSS
Thank you. Can I have at least 2 copies of a sample analysis study as my reference?
Could you please send me some sample of textbook content analysis?
Can I send you my research topic, aims, objectives and questions to give me feedback on them?
please could you send me samples of content analysis?
Yes please send
really we enjoyed your knowledge thanks allot. from Ethiopia
can you please share some samples of content analysis(relational)? I am a bit confused about processing the analysis part
Is it possible for you to list the journal articles and books or other sources you used to write this article? Thank you.
can you please send some samples of content analysis ?
can you kindly send some good examples done by using content analysis ?
This was very useful. can you please send me sample for qualitative content analysis. thank you
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Home » Content Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples
Table of Contents
Definition:
Content analysis is a research method used to analyze and interpret the characteristics of various forms of communication, such as text, images, or audio. It involves systematically analyzing the content of these materials, identifying patterns, themes, and other relevant features, and drawing inferences or conclusions based on the findings.
Content analysis can be used to study a wide range of topics, including media coverage of social issues, political speeches, advertising messages, and online discussions, among others. It is often used in qualitative research and can be combined with other methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon.
There are generally two types of content analysis:
This type of content analysis involves the systematic and objective counting and categorization of the content of a particular form of communication, such as text or video. The data obtained is then subjected to statistical analysis to identify patterns, trends, and relationships between different variables. Quantitative content analysis is often used to study media content, advertising, and political speeches.
This type of content analysis is concerned with the interpretation and understanding of the meaning and context of the content. It involves the systematic analysis of the content to identify themes, patterns, and other relevant features, and to interpret the underlying meanings and implications of these features. Qualitative content analysis is often used to study interviews, focus groups, and other forms of qualitative data, where the researcher is interested in understanding the subjective experiences and perceptions of the participants.
There are several methods of content analysis, including:
This method involves analyzing the meanings of key concepts used in the content being analyzed. The researcher identifies key concepts and analyzes how they are used, defining them and categorizing them into broader themes.
This method involves counting and categorizing the frequency of specific words, phrases, or themes that appear in the content being analyzed. The researcher identifies relevant keywords or phrases and systematically counts their frequency.
This method involves comparing the content of two or more sources to identify similarities, differences, and patterns. The researcher selects relevant sources, identifies key themes or concepts, and compares how they are represented in each source.
This method involves analyzing the structure and language of the content being analyzed to identify how the content constructs and represents social reality. The researcher analyzes the language used and the underlying assumptions, beliefs, and values reflected in the content.
This method involves analyzing the content as a narrative, identifying the plot, characters, and themes, and analyzing how they relate to the broader social context. The researcher identifies the underlying messages conveyed by the narrative and their implications for the broader social context.
Here is a basic guide to conducting a content analysis:
Content analysis has numerous applications across different fields, including:
Here are some examples of content analysis:
The purpose of content analysis is to systematically analyze and interpret the content of various forms of communication, such as written, oral, or visual, to identify patterns, themes, and meanings. Content analysis is used to study communication in a wide range of fields, including media studies, political science, psychology, education, sociology, and marketing research. The primary goals of content analysis include:
Content analysis is a useful method when you want to analyze and interpret the content of various forms of communication, such as written, oral, or visual. Here are some specific situations where content analysis might be appropriate:
Content analysis has several key characteristics that make it a useful research method. These include:
There are several advantages to using content analysis as a research method, including:
While content analysis has many advantages, there are also some limitations to consider, including:
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
Published on 5 May 2022 by Amy Luo . Revised on 5 December 2022.
Content analysis is a research method used to identify patterns in recorded communication. To conduct content analysis, you systematically collect data from a set of texts, which can be written, oral, or visual:
Content analysis can be both quantitative (focused on counting and measuring) and qualitative (focused on interpreting and understanding). In both types, you categorise or ‘code’ words, themes, and concepts within the texts and then analyse the results.
What is content analysis used for, advantages of content analysis, disadvantages of content analysis, how to conduct content analysis.
Researchers use content analysis to find out about the purposes, messages, and effects of communication content. They can also make inferences about the producers and audience of the texts they analyse.
Content analysis can be used to quantify the occurrence of certain words, phrases, subjects, or concepts in a set of historical or contemporary texts.
In addition, content analysis can be used to make qualitative inferences by analysing the meaning and semantic relationship of words and concepts.
Because content analysis can be applied to a broad range of texts, it is used in a variety of fields, including marketing, media studies, anthropology, cognitive science, psychology, and many social science disciplines. It has various possible goals:
You can analyse communication and social interaction without the direct involvement of participants, so your presence as a researcher doesn’t influence the results.
When done well, content analysis follows a systematic procedure that can easily be replicated by other researchers, yielding results with high reliability .
You can conduct content analysis at any time, in any location, and at low cost. All you need is access to the appropriate sources.
Focusing on words or phrases in isolation can sometimes be overly reductive, disregarding context, nuance, and ambiguous meanings.
Content analysis almost always involves some level of subjective interpretation, which can affect the reliability and validity of the results and conclusions.
Manually coding large volumes of text is extremely time-consuming, and it can be difficult to automate effectively.
If you want to use content analysis in your research, you need to start with a clear, direct research question .
Next, you follow these five steps.
Based on your research question, choose the texts that you will analyse. You need to decide:
If there are only a small number of texts that meet your criteria, you might analyse all of them. If there is a large volume of texts, you can select a sample .
Next, you need to determine the level at which you will analyse your chosen texts. This means defining:
Coding involves organising the units of meaning into the previously defined categories. Especially with more conceptual categories, it’s important to clearly define the rules for what will and won’t be included to ensure that all texts are coded consistently.
Coding rules are especially important if multiple researchers are involved, but even if you’re coding all of the text by yourself, recording the rules makes your method more transparent and reliable.
You go through each text and record all relevant data in the appropriate categories. This can be done manually or aided with computer programs, such as QSR NVivo , Atlas.ti , and Diction , which can help speed up the process of counting and categorising words and phrases.
Once coding is complete, the collected data is examined to find patterns and draw conclusions in response to your research question. You might use statistical analysis to find correlations or trends, discuss your interpretations of what the results mean, and make inferences about the creators, context, and audience of the texts.
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.
Luo, A. (2022, December 05). Content Analysis | A Step-by-Step Guide with Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 5 July 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/content-analysis-explained/
How to do thematic analysis | guide & examples, data collection methods | step-by-step guide & examples, qualitative vs quantitative research | examples & methods.
This chapter examines qualitative content analysis, a recent methodological innovation. Qualitative content analysis is defined and distinguished here from basic and interpretive approaches to content analysis. Qualitative content analysis is also distinguished from other qualitative research methods, though features and techniques overlap with other qualitative methods. Key differences in the predominant use of newly collected data and use of non-quantitative analysis techniques are detailed. Differences in epistemology and the role of researcher self-awareness and reflexivity are also discussed. Methods of graphic data presentation are illustrated. Three short exemplar studies using qualitative content analysis are described and examined. Qualitative content analysis is explored in detail in terms of its characteristic components: (1) the research purposes of content analysis, (2) target audiences, (3) epistemological issues, (4) ethical issues, (5) research designs, (6) sampling issues and methods, (7) collecting data, (8) coding and categorization methods, (9) data analysis methods, and (10) the role of researcher reflection.
Sign in with a library card.
Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:
Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.
Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.
If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.
Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.
Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:
Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:
If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.
A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.
Click the account icon in the top right to:
Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.
For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.
Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
October 2022 | 200 |
November 2022 | 312 |
December 2022 | 217 |
January 2023 | 242 |
February 2023 | 314 |
March 2023 | 408 |
April 2023 | 358 |
May 2023 | 278 |
June 2023 | 161 |
July 2023 | 174 |
August 2023 | 230 |
September 2023 | 167 |
October 2023 | 220 |
November 2023 | 227 |
December 2023 | 206 |
January 2024 | 220 |
February 2024 | 452 |
March 2024 | 392 |
April 2024 | 452 |
May 2024 | 353 |
June 2024 | 219 |
July 2024 | 61 |
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide
Sign In or Create an Account
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Email citation, add to collections.
Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.
Affiliation.
Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
PubMed Disclaimer
Full text sources.
NCBI Literature Resources
MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer
The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.
You are using an outdated browser. This page doesn't support Internet Explorer 6, 7 and 8. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.
Qualitative content and discourse analysis comparing the current consent systems for deceased organ donation in spain and england.
England switched to an opt-out system of consent in 2020 aiming to increase the number of organs available. Spain also operates an opt-out system yet has almost twice the organ donations per million population compared with England. We aimed to identify both differences and similarities in the consent policies, documents and procedures in deceased donation between the two countries using comparative qualitative content and discourse analysis. Spain had simpler, locally tailored documents, the time taken for families to review and process information may be shorter, there were more pathways leading to organ donation in Spain, and more robust legal protections for the decisions individuals made in life. The language in the Spanish documents was one of support and reassurance. Documents in England by comparison appeared confusing, since additions were designed to protect the NHS against risk and made to previous document versions to reflect the law change rather than being entirely recast. If England’s ambition is to achieve consent rates similar to Spain this analysis has highlighted opportunities that could strengthen the English system-by giving individuals’ decisions recorded on the organ donor register legal weight, alongside unifying and simplifying consent policies and procedures to support families and healthcare professionals.
Since England switched to an opt-out consent system in May 2020, with the aim of making more organs available for transplant through the introduction of deemed consent, consent rates for deceased organ donation have not increased [ 1 ]. Despite high ambitions [ 2 ] England still appears to be falling short of the number of organs available achieved by Spain which has consistently had much higher organ donation rates (46.7 per million population in 2022) despite having a similar legal framework for deceased organ donation consent [ 3 ].
Presumed consent (sometimes referred to as deemed consent) means that a person is considered to have no objection to donating their organs after death unless they have registered or informed someone close to them that they do not wish to do so. There have been many studies that have concluded that presumed consent alone does not explain the fluctuation in donation rates between countries [ 4 ]. Legislation, public knowledge and awareness of organ donation, donor availability and characteristics, religious beliefs, transplant service infrastructure and healthcare system capacity (e.g., in intensive care), all play a part in making more organs available for transplant, but their relative importance is unclear [ 5 – 8 ].
England implemented their opt-out system to increase the consent rate for deceased organ donation, the assumption being that more organs would become available for transplant. However the opt-out legislation was nested within the existing opt-in system, and despite the addition of the new deemed consent pathway, the failure to secure consent for deceased organ donation retrieval from those involved in end-of-life discussions is still widely regarded as the single most important obstacle to making more organs available for transplant in England [ 9 ].
The purpose of this analysis was to identify differences and similarities in consent policies and associated documents between England and Spain and to consider whether there are opportunities to further increase consent rates for deceased organ donation and improve current practice in England.
This analysis was undertaken as part of a broader evaluation of the impact of opt-out in England on the organ donation system [ 10 ]. During the study it became clear that the processes involved in consent, in particular were lengthy, excessive and negatively impacted families in England [ 11 ]. Specialist staff involved in consent also felt the process to be excessive and burdensome [ 12 ]. The research team was aware of extensive research into gold standards in terms of pathways to organ donation, i.e., what should happen and by whom to achieve the desired outcomes (the so-called Spanish model) [ 13 ] but was unable to find examples (or research) of the consent documents used in practice in countries with opt-out systems, which are considered leaders in organ donation. We felt that as the main study was specifically commissioned to examine a policy that (in theory) shifts from a model of informed consent to a model of presumed consent it would be a worthwhile and interesting analysis to look more closely at the consent documents and associated policies and guidelines of the world’s leading country with an opt-out system and compare them.
Research question.
What are the differences in roles, processes, consent forms and practices between the Spanish and English systems of organ donation and how do any identified differences begin to explain the higher consent rates in Spain?
We identified and obtained key policy and procedure documents and consent forms from the websites of the “Organizacion Nacional de Transplantes” (ONT) in Spain and NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) in England. Documents published in Spanish were translated into English for analysis using the “TransPerfect” computer software. Table 1 lists the documents included in the analysis [ 14 – 22 ]. The documents were read, reread, compared and coded.
Table 1 . Documents included in the analysis.
We worked with a Spanish intensive care doctor (co-author) via email and two online team sessions to clarify the correct interpretation of the documents and the donation system. This enabled us to verify that the current practice was in line with the written protocols. We engaged stakeholders through meetings with academics and cliniciansorganized by the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) to help establish the context of the English and Spanish organ donation systems within which the documents for analysis were produced. We consulted with a United Kingdom senior nurse (co-author) involved in the English NHSBT education program and United Kingdom legislation. A summary flowchart of the Spanish and English organ donation structures and processes was made for comparison ( Figures 1 , 2 ).
Figure 1 . Flow chart of the English and Spanish process constructed from documents (20–22) and stakeholder engagement.
Figure 2 . Flow chart of the Spanish process constructed from documents (14–19).
These processes helped to build a better understanding of broad cultural factors, such as religious beliefs, ethnic diversity, family dynamics, the reaction of families to the system and whether they had ever challenged the law, and how these might be underpinning any differences observed in the documents analyzed in detail.
Qualitative content analysis was used to code, analyze, compare and interpret the textual data and diagrams in the included documents to gain insight into the meaning and context of the policy, and the links between content, process and outcome [ 23 ].
Coding involved assigning attributes to words, sentences, or paragraphs to compare and contrast content, process and meaning. Consent forms were compared for structure, content, and length [ 24 ].
Principles of critical discourse analysis were used to make additional interpretations of the text, complemented by engagement with experts in the Spanish and English systems. This was done to systematically explore the often-opaque relationships between what is written (i.e., policies, guidelines) and what happens in practice, with multiple stakeholders, many with different objectives. This process helped to examine, for example, who or what the subjects and objects are in the respective structures, discourses and processes, and how and why the two systems manage to generate and maintain different forms of language (rhetoric) [ 25 ]. The flowcharts constructed ( Figures 1 , 2 ) helped to show where objects in relation to consent such as the Organ Donor Register, the roles of the staff, e.g., clinicians, transplant coordinators, nursing staff and the role and hierarchy of the family, etc. fit together in a complex system. The rhetorical analysis specifically searched for opportunities to give or decline consent within the process. This enabled us to understand more about the mechanisms underpinning the Spanish consent pathway, and thus extrapolate findings that may be applicable, with adaptation, to England [ 26 ].
Co-authors LM and JN were already working with colleagues in the English system and were connected via multiple professional networks to clinical and academic colleagues in Spain. Once the lead investigators had a good understanding of the two systems, we had further discussions with the Spanish consultant and Senior United Kingdom nurse co-authors to validate the interpretation of the two systems. We presented this work at several multi-disciplinary meetings and events including the Deconstructing Donation Special Interest Group for additional critique and insight. We adapted the recommendations for rigor, transparency, evidence, and representation to present the results [ 27 ].
Box 1 provides a comparison of some key performance indicators in England and Spain in the year 2022.
Box 1 Comparison of key performance indicators between Spain and England 2022.
A direct comparison of the systems, processes, and cultural and linguistic styles between Spain and England in relation to consent for deceased organ donation is described below. Table 2 highlights similarities and differences within the systems with specific reference to consent ( Table 2 ). The mechanisms that may or may not be a factor in achieving the desired outcomes in relation to consent are further unpacked and described in Table 3 .
Table 2 . Similarities and differences within the Spain and England systems with specific reference to consent.
Table 3 . Mechanisms which may be a factor in bringing about the desired outcomes, or not, in relation to consent.
England has a diverse population with deep-rooted Christian traditions and multi-faith communities. England switched to an opt-out system of consent to deceased organ donation in May 2020. The organ donation system is run by the NHSBT, which is publicly funded and not privately available. Deceased organ donation is considered for those who die from brain stem or controlled circulatory death. Donation is therefore only possible for those who are admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), but ICU admission is for treatment and prognostic purposes, not for organ donation [ 28 – 30 ].
England has an intensive care bed capacity of approximately 6.6 per 100,000 people [ 31 ]. Organ donation is possible in every acute NHS hospital. When the patient is identified as a potential donor the clinical team caring for the patient will refer the patient via a national referral number. The regional NHSBT team will assess the patient and mobilize a Specialist Requester (SR) or Specialist Nurse in Organ Donation (SNOD) – depending on who is available. After checking the national Organ Donor Register (ODR), the SNOD/SR will visit the unit and approach the family about donation – this is a nurse-led process and care pathway. The ODR has various options (e.g., opt-in, opt-out, nominate a representative and the ability to specify a small number of organs/tissues that people do or do not want to donate after death) but it has no legal status and family members have the ability to override it in practice and even register a decision on behalf of their loved one. Hospitals are reimbursed a small sum for facilitating organ donation, (approximately 1,000 pounds per donor) but this figure has not increased substantially over time and complex and bureaucratic finance systems often make it difficult to spend and save money to promote organ donation.
Spain is a predominantly Catholic country and has had an organ donation system for 44 years [ 32 ]. The organ donation system is overseen by the ONT. It is possible to be an organ donor while being treated privately, by being transferred to the public health system for donation purposes only. In addition to the pathways in England, deceased organ donation can be obtained from sudden unexpected circulatory deaths and those undergoing euthanasia. Spain has an intensive care bed capacity of approximately 9.7 beds per 100,000 people [ 33 ]. In Spain, patients admitted to the Emergency Department with catastrophic brain or cardiac damage where treatment is considered futile, can be intubated, and admitted to the ICU for the purpose of organ donation [ 34 ]. Also, those who are suspected of developing brain death or have already been declared brain dead in private institutions or the Emergency Department, can be admitted to the ICU solely for the purpose of organ donation, unlike in England.
Spain has dedicated hospitals where deceased organ retrieval can occur, with designated transplant coordinators (TC) in each of these hospitals (approximately 70% being physicians and 30% nurses). Often in hospitals with no TC, there will be proactive ICU staff who can identify donors. They can request support from a dedicated hospital which will usually send a TC to aid in speaking with the family. Any healthcare professional can contact the TC regarding a potential donor. Once alerted to a potential donor the TC will visit the potential case, review the medical records, and determine whether or not there is a “ prior instructions document. ” This document has legal status.
In England “ the individual leading the family approach for organ donation must be suitably trained and qualified with sufficient knowledge and skills to sensitively answer any questions and have the time to support the family,” [21, pg 9]. In practice, this is always the SNOD/SR, anybody outside of this role is actively discouraged from discussing organ donation [ 12 ].
As illustrated in Figure 1 , the English system has many pathways to consent. If the deceased opted for organ donation during their lifetime, this is discussed with the family to ensure that this was the last known decision. If the deceased had opted out of the ODR “ providing work load allows, the SNOD should also discuss with the family if this was the last known decision.” [SIC] [20, pg 11]. If this is not possible due to workload, the SNOD/SR will “ coach the clinician in the discussion to have with the family and agree actions.” If the clinician feels unable to do this, the family will have to wait for the arrival of the SNOD/SR. In practice, detailed discussions with the family when the deceased has opted out rarely happen due to limited resources and concerns about NHSBT being seen as pushing for organ donation when the deceased has opted out.
Another pathway, although rare, is the “nominated representative,” where a person nominates someone else to make a decision on their behalf before they die. “ If despite all reasonable efforts the nominated representative cannot be contacted in time or to make a decision, then consent may be deemed. ” [SIC] [21, pg 19] Nonetheless, the donation can only take place after the family has also been consulted.
Only after the SNOD/SR has established that none of the above pathways apply, can they check whether consent can be assumed. If the family cannot agree, despite being given time and further information, then “ the hierarchy of consent, i.e., highest qualifying relationship,” applies but the final decision to proceed lies with the [SNOD/SR]. ’ [SIC] In reality, it is the family member with the strongest voice (either for or against donation) whose wishes are followed [ 11 , 35 ]. In addition, the SNOD/SR cannot proceed with the donation unless they have the full support (and permission) of the treating clinical team(s). If the family cannot be contacted and there is no prior expression of a decision, then although “consent could be deemed it is advised that donation must not proceed.’ ”[SIC] [21, pg 17].
To override a decision, families need only provide a “ level of information that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that they [i.e., the deceased] did not want to be a donor.” [21, pg 24]. This may be verbal or written. Any evidence from any family member at this point can be taken into account. [21, pg 18] The SNOD/SR will make a judgment about the reliability of the information and whether it is right for the donation to proceed. “ Sometimes clinical staff will reach the judgement that although there is a legal basis to proceed with the donation, the human considerations involved mean that it should not go ahead. While the presence of appropriate consent permits organ and tissue donation to take place, it does not mandate that it must….(and) where the risks to public confidence might outweigh the benefits of donation proceeding, donation should not proceed even though the law permits it. ” [SIC] [21, pg 7].
In Spain, there is no organ donor register but a prior instructions document is available from the patient’s GP. Patients can register their consent or refusal to be an organ donor in the document which will be made available in the local Advance Directives Registry. Their families will be approached and informed of the recorded decision. If a “No” to the donation has been recorded, the family will still be asked if there has been any recent change to this decision. However, there would have to be substantial evidence to overturn this notion since the prior instructions document has legal value and is signed by a witness.
It is recommended that the healthcare professional who mentions organ donation be different from the professional who has discussed the likelihood of the patient dying to avoid a conflict of interest for the TC who may also have a role as an intensivist, etc. It is mandatory in some hospitals that the TC be contacted before withdrawal of treatment in the ICU, a condition introduced by some hospital medical directors.
The English consent form is seven pages long, with all organs, tissues and retrieval processes listed as yes/no checkboxes, including options for additional information. The family will need to answer “Yes” or “No” to everything irrespective of what the deceased had registered about what organs they wanted to donate while they were alive and this will include organ donation for research (not just therapeutic purposes). The family will be made aware that the decision can be revoked until “knife to skin.” [ 20, pg 24]. The family members “ are encouraged to sign the consent form ” although there is no legal obligation to do so. The process may take hours to days. The SNOD/SR will document the conversation in the patient’s notes and on the NHSBT’s national digital system, also verified by a witness. If the family were to override the decision or revoke consent this will be respected and the reasons would be acknowledged and recorded by the SNOD/SR.
Each Spanish region has its own form based on examples from the ONT protocols. Often they are a single page requesting the name and relationship of the relative and the date. Some do have a free text space for the family to write what organs or tissues they believe the deceased would not have wished to donate. In other cases, these wishes are documented in the medical notes instead. Once a decision is reached after discussion with the family, it is mandatory that the consent form be signed by the dissenting family member(s).
In England, when families are approached, they are asked, “ what the potential donor’s last decision would have been and whether the deceased expressed any thoughts on becoming a donor” [SIC]. The guidelines suggest that SNODs/SRs should establish who is the next of kin (in accordance with the established highest qualifying relationship guidance) and approach that relative to organ donation. Although the opportunity to help others is often mentioned, the overall guidelines suggest that the SNOD/SR should remain impartial [ 21 ].
In Spain, if there is no recorded decision made while alive, the family is generally asked: “ what would have been the willingness of the deceased to donate their organs to help other people?” [SIC] [ 16, pg 197]. “If the family are in doubt, the TC can assist in decision-making, reinforcing positive verbalisations to donation and courage in those moments, and conveying ideas of generosity and proximity and enquiring whether the deceased gave to charity or donated blood during their lifetime, etc.” [SIC] [16, pg 126].
In the case of large families, the TC seeks to speak to the “key family” member. The key family member is identified through discussion with the family and the knowledge of the staff caring for the patient. Should a family be divided over the issue of donation, the TC will not proceed. If there is no family present, the TC “strive(s) through links with social services and the police to find a family member”[16, pg 120] but may still consider organ donation if no family can be found.
Should the family decline the donation, “ it is important to make it clear that the decision is respected and understood but that, however, it is advisable to think about the matter more slowly without the presence of a TC.”[16, pg 126] The TC also explores the reasoning behind the refusal and corrects misunderstandings. The TC may approach the family as often as necessary.
During the consent process, the family is usually asked which organs they believe the deceased would not want to donate. The conversation aims to combine “ speed and effectiveness in communicating with families, with respect for ethical principles and transparency that must preside over the process .” [SIC] [16, pg 116] On average, the process of gaining consent takes 30 min.
This is the first detailed documentary comparison between the Spanish and English opt-out systems of consent to organ donation. The biggest differences observed were that the Spanish system was less complex in terms of consent, evidently pro-donation with a willingness to take some risks, likely to take less time, better resourced, with better access to ICU beds and a more locally tailored opt-out system with some legal protection for the potential organ donor’s life choices. England in contrast has a more complex centralized system with risk-adverse protocols, an itemized approach to consent, implemented in a country where there are fewer ICU beds, and no legal protection for the potential organ donor.
The Spanish system covers both public and private hospitals and has dedicated resources for organ donation, such as stand-alone centers and in-hospital beds. In England, for deceased organ donation, the NHSBT only covers NHS hospitals so some potential donors in the private sector are lost. There are no dedicated resources in England organ donation takes place when the system has the capacity to manage it which can potentially lead to frustration and disengagement of non-specialist staff. Euthanasia and organ donation are legal in Spain (illegal in England) and although the pathway is relatively recent it has created an additional platform to embed organ donation as a routine end-of-life process–the initial requests for this pathway have come from people who had requested euthanasia and not in the originaleuthanasia protocols. Potential organ donors with neurodegenerative conditions requesting euthanasia also tend to be younger without underlying co-morbidities and a single donor could potentially decide to donate all of their organs and tissues to help others, again increasing the visibility of organ donation in the system.
Families are as involved in decision-making in Spain as they are in England, but the consent process is shorter in Spain. The language used with family members and staff was also observed to be different in tone and meaning. The English system focuses on establishing the “ last known decision of the deceased ”whereas the Spanish system aims to establish “ the will of the potential organ donor to donate their organs as well as the will to help others.” In England, current guidelines and codes of conduct reflect the human tissue authority’s position on consent to organ and tissue retrieval. This appears to be more in line with the old “opt-in” system and thus encourages unnecessary risk aversion which is contrary to the spirit of the opt-out legislation and appears confusing and neutral.
Organ donation appears to be more embedded within the Spanish healthcare system as an integral part of end-of-life care, with many healthcare professionals being aware of it and being encouraged to be involved with it. As such, it may be more likely to be discussed by families as there may be a healthcare worker in the family or someone they know who has been through the process before.
The legally binding prior instructions document is also available from the GP or local hospital and is signed with a witness present. Therefore, the witness, i.e., an accompanying family member is likely to be able to verify the document. Once completed, it is part of the person’s local medical record, meaning that there is a more complex process if family members want to challenge their loved one’s organ donation decision in life. There is a significant risk to donor decisions in England as anybody can go onto the ODR and register - SNODs/SRs continue to find cases where the opt-out decision was registered at a time when the person was being ventilated in the ICU [ 9 ].
The structure of the hospitals - i.e., that specific hospitals manage deceased organ donation, that patients can be admitted to the ICU purely for the need to ventilate organs and drug infusion in preparation for donation - is also very different from England. Matching the Spanish approach would undoubtedly cost the NHS more at the expense of another area of the health service. However, Spain states that “ the social value of organ donation justifies staff efforts and the economic cost involved” [SIC] [16, pg 195], indicating an overall difference in priority in terms of deceased organ donation between the two countries.
In addition to the marked differences in the provision of ICU beds required for organ donation to proceed, in 2019, Spain had 3 hospital beds per 1,000 people whereas England had 2.5 beds per 1,000 people. In 2019, Spain had a bed occupancy rate of 76%, whereas in England the same rate was 92% for general and acute overnight beds [ 33 ]. Given the relentless pressure on NHS staff to continuously manage such a high bed occupancy rate, it becomes clearer why a centralized system of organ donation was implemented via a separate NHS body (NHSBT) with its own governance and management structures [ 36 ]. The NHSBT was created in 2008 and to a certain extent, its centralized opt-in system was successful in that consent rates steadily increased over the following decade before the law was changed. Nonetheless, the NHSBT has not been able to replicate the success of Spain. In 2020, a “soft” opt-out was implemented within the existing centralized national system alongside the existing opt-in system, and the two systems have been operating together in a complex way ever since. Although Spain does also offer the ability for patients to opt-in through their decision on the prior instructions document, this is rarely seen since the Spanish public trusts the organ donation system and knows that their families will always be consulted so they do not see it as important to record their life decisions. This makes the law appear more consistent and in line with a system of presumed consent, unlike in England [ 37 ].
The NHS is built on the ethos that “if it is not written down it did not happen.” This has been generally applied to mitigate any potential legal action against staff or the NHS in the future. This is partially why consent documents and protocols tend to reflect ambiguity and risk aversion when compared with Spain which appears more comfortable with the spirit of presumed consent. However this is potentially creating a context where SNODs/SRs are not able to openly and proactively emphasize the benefits of organ donation or feel fully supported to do so with families. We suggest, given a change in legislation that has changed the default for nearly 60 million citizens to support the donation of their organs after they die, unless they say otherwise, that documents and standard operating procedures, particularly in relation to consent, reflect this and are revised with a view to simplification and presumption.
The ODR also lacks legal status. Approximately 10% of families override their relatives’ opt-in decision but the same rates are not observed for opt-out decisions. Despite having an ODR, it is not mandatory to follow the organ donation decision on the register. If the ODR was given greater legal status and the decisions in it were used as a basis for the conversation with the family after death (preferably by simplifying the latter to bring it more in line with the Spanish approach to consent after death), this could make it easier for the family to support the potential donor’s decision. It may also create a context in which people are more likely to discuss what they want in terms of organ donation. Aligning language, processes and guidelines with the legislation on presumed consent may generate a more positive initial response to organ donation and help address doubts or concerns that are common in these complex end-of-life discussions.
The linking of the ODR to a patient’s medical record can also make it easier for healthcare professionals to discuss with the patient if they still stand by their recorded decision should anything life-threatening happen during their admission, similar to a “Do Not Attempt Resuscitation” form.
Although organ donation has expanded in Spain, the underlying principles of legal standing, guidelines and protocols have not changed substantially. Since 2021 the latest NHSBT consent manual has had six updates. The most recent updates are included in Figure 3 for reference. The consent form has undergone multiple revisions in recent years, with each iteration adding further layers of complexity and processes. This is wasteful and prevents opportunities for innovation that would benefit patients at an individual level. Any revisions to the documents need to be more mindful of the users (e.g., SNODs/SRs and acutely bereaved families) and provide a more personalized and sensitive approach to consent that is aligned with the ambitions of opt-out legislation.
Figure 3 . Latest update to the consent manual in England.
Due to resource constraints, we were not able to back-translate very long policy documents from English into Spanish. We relied on software to translate Spanish documents and then verified key concepts and processes with a small number of Spanish experts.
Policy documents alone do not entirely reflect actual practice and there is of course variation in the implementation of processes within each health system. We acknowledge this limitation and mitigated it by engaging with organ donation practitioners in Spain and England as co-authors to complement our documentary analysis with their perceptions, experiences and knowledge. There are also significant differences within and between countries that are not reflected in a discourse analysis focused on consent such as detailed public attitudes to organ donation [ 37 , 38 ] as well as potential donor characteristics and methods of optimizing organ donor potential which vary widely.
Finally England has a much higher number of live donors than Spain, emphasizing the complexity of organ donation and the fact that there are more ways to increase the number of organs available, reflecting that deceased donor consent rates are not the only measure of a successful organ donation system.
The Spanish system has a simpler and more streamlined approach to family consent to organ donation and the documents very proactively encourage donation. If England’s ambition is to achieve the consent rates consistently seen in Spain, there may be opportunities to do so by giving greater legal protection and status to the ODR and also by changing the culture from being impartial and risk-averse toward the promotion of organ donation. Significant investment in staff and resources would also be required to match the availability of ICU beds seen in Spain as well as dedicated resources, including specialist sites, which were previously deemed too expensive to invest in. However, there are potentially modifiable issues that appear to work better in Spain such as a shorter and simpler consent process and much more positive language throughout the process, which would improve the experience of staff and acutely bereaved families. In parallel, research is needed (ideally in a controlled context [ 39 ]) to understand more about what works, for whom and why in order to maintain the supply of organs to meet the increasing demand.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
The main study received favorable ethics opinions from the LSHTM Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 26427 – 20/07/2021) and from the Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 21/NW/0151 – 03/06/2021). Research approvals were received from the HRA and Health and Care Research (HCRW) Wales (IRAS project ID 297313) on 3/06/2021, and from the Research, Innovation and Novel Technologies Advisory Group (RINTAG) (ODT Study no 113; NHSBT Change Control ref: cc/11164) on 11/06/2021. This particular analysis involved comparing publicly accessible protocol and policy documents and engagement with experts by opinion, specific ethical approval for this work was not required. At the time of publication, a revised 2-page consent form has received approval from the HTA and educational research is in progress (Miller) following the implementation of opt-out.
KR - undertook first draft of protocol, translation and analysis of documents, prepared the initial report and contributed to preparing the manuscript for submission. JN – conceptualised the study, reviewed the protocol, contributed to primary analysis, reviewing the draft and preparing the manuscript for submission. LM – conceptualised the study, reviewed the protocol, undertook stakeholder engagement, contributed to primary analysis, reviewing the draft and preparing the manuscript for submission. NM -Reviewed the protocol and contributed to preparing the manuscript for submission. DP-Z – contributed to data analysis, stakeholder engagement and reviewed the manuscript for submission. CM – contributed to data analysis, stakeholder engagement, contextual understanding and reviewed the manuscript for submission. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
The author(s) declare(s) that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was funded by the NIHR Policy Research Programme through its core support to the Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit (Project No: PR-PRU-1217-20602). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
1. NHSBT. Organ Donation Key Rates NHSBT (2022). Available from: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMGIxYWIyMmEtZmU0Ny00OTkwLTlmNWUtYmEyNmFlZDI1YmQyIiwidCI6ImUxMWExYjhmLThmNTItNDYwOC04Zjc2LTQ2N2ZmMWQzNGM5NiIsImMiOjh9 (Accessed May 24, 2023).
Google Scholar
2. O’Neill, S, Thomas, K, Mc Laughlin, L, Noyes, J, Boadu, P, Williams, L, et al. Trends in Organ Donation in England, Scotland and Wales in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic and ‘Opt-Out Legislation’. PLoS One (2024).
3. Statista. Deceased Organ Donor Rate in Europe (2022). Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/537908/deceased-organ-donor-rate-in-europe (Accessed May 24, 2023).
4. Deroos, LJ, Marrero, WJ, Tapper, EB, Sonnenday, CJ, Lavieri, MS, Hutton, DW, et al. Estimated Association between Organ Availability and Presumed Consent in Solid Organ Transplant. JAMA Netw Open (2019) 2:e1912431. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12431
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
5. Hulme, W, Allen, J, Manara, AR, Murphy, PG, Gardiner, D, and Poppitt, E. Factors Influencing the Family Consent Rate for Organ Donation in the UK. Anaesthesia (2016)) 71(9):1053–63. doi:10.1111/anae.13535
6. Rithalia, A, McDaid, C, Suekarran, S, Myers, L, and Sowden, A. Impact of Presumed Consent for Organ Donation on Donation Rates: A Systematic Review. BMJ (2009) 338(7689):a3162–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.a3162
7. Becker, F, Roberts, KJ, De Nadal, M, Zink, M, Stiegler, P, Pemberger, S, et al. Optimizing Organ Donation: Expert Opinion from Austria, Germany, Spain and the U.K. Ann Transpl (2020) 25:e921727. doi:10.12659/AOT.921727
8. Yilmaz, UT. Importance of Education in Organ Donation. Exp Clin Transpl (2011) 9(6):370–5.
9. Noyes, J, McLaughlin, L, Morgan, K, Roberts, A, Moss, B, Stephens, M, et al. Process Evaluation of Specialist Nurse Implementation of a Soft Opt-Out Organ Donation System in Wales. BMC Health Serv Res (2019) 19:414. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4266-z
10. Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit. Evaluation of Changes to Organ Donation Legislation in England (2019). Available from: https://piru.ac.uk/projects/current-projects/evaluation-of-changes-to-organ-donation-legislation-in-england.html (Accessed May, 2024).
11. Mc Laughlin, L, Mays, N, Al-Haboubi, M, Williams, L, Bostock, J, Boadu, P, et al. Potential Donor Family Behaviours, Experiences and Decisions Following Implementation of the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019 in England: A Qualitative Study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs (2024).
12. Al-Haboubi, M, Mc Laughlin, L, Noyes, J, Williams, L, Bostock, J, and Boadu, P. Perceptions and Experiences of Healthcare Professionals of Implementing the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act in England during the Covid-19 Pandemic. BMC Health Serv Res (2024).
13. Streit, S, Johnston-Webber, C, Mah, J, Prionas, A, Wharton, G, Casanova, D, et al. Ten Lessons from the Spanish Model of Organ Donation and Transplantation. Transpl Int (2023) 36:11009. doi:10.3389/ti.2023.11009
14. ONT. Framework Protocol for Organ and Tissue Donation in the Private Sector Healthcare Facilities in Collaboration with the Public (2019). Available from: https://www.ont.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/PROTOC1.pdf (Accessed May 22, 2023).
15. State Agency Official State Gazette. Order SSI/2396/2014 Establishing the Basis of the Quality and Safety Framework Program for the Procurement and Transplantation of Human Organs and Establishing the Information Procedures for its Exchange with Other Countries (2014). Available from: https://www.boe.es (Accessed May 22, 2023).
16. ONT. Asystole Donation in Spain: Current Situation and Recommendations. Document of National Consensus (2012). Available from: https://www.ont.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Doc-de-Consenso-Nacional-sobre-Donacion-en-Asistolia.-Ano-2012.pdf (Accessed May 22, 2023).
17. ONT. Quality Improvement Programme (2019), Available from: https://www.ont.es/informacion-a-los-profesionales-4/programa-de-calidad-del-proceso-de-donacion-4-8/ , [Accessed May 22 2023].
18. Ministry of Health Social Services and Equity. Royal Decree 1723-2012 of 28 December (2012). Available from: https://www.global-regulation.com/translation/spain/1491185/royal-decree-1723---2012%252c-of-28-december%252c-which-regulates-the-activities-of-procurement%252c-clinical-use-and-territorial-coordination-of-human-orga.html (Accessed May 22, 2023).
19. ONT. Emergency Professionals and the Process of Donation (2015). Available from: https://www.ont.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ELPROF1.pdf (Accessed May 22, 2023).
20. NHSBT. Organ and Tissue Donation Consent Manual (2021). Available from: https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/21508/organ-and-tissue-donation-consent-manual-sop5818.pdf (Accessed may 22, 2023).
21. Human Tissue Authority. Code of Practice Code A: Guiding Principles and the Fundamental Principle of Consent (2020). Available from: https://content.hta.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2020-11/Code%20A.pdf (Accessed May, 2020).
22. NHSBT. Consent for Organ And/or Tissue Donation FORM FRM4281/8 (2021). Available from: https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/21509/consent-for-organ-and-or-tissue-donation-frm4281.pdf (Accessed May 22, 2023).
23. Fox, DE, Donald, M, Chong, C, Quinn, RR, Ronksley, PE, Elliott, MJ, et al. A Qualitative Content Analysis of Comments on Press Articles on Deemed Consent for Organ Donation in Canada. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol (2022) 17(11):1656–64. doi:10.2215/CJN.04340422
24. Hsieh, HF, and Shannon, SE. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res (2005) 15(9):1277–88. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
25. Galasiński, D, and Sque, M. Organ Donation agency: A Discourse Analysis of Correspondence between Donor and Organ Recipient Families. Sociol Health Illn (2016) 38(8):1350–63. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12478
26. Mogashoa, T. Understanding Critical Discourse Analysis in Qualitative Research. Int J Humanities Soc Sci Edu (2014) 1(7):104–13.
27. Greckhamer, T, and Cilesiz, SR. Transparency, Evidence, and Representation in Discourse Analysis: Challenges and Recommendations. Int J Qual Methods (2014) 13(1):422–43. doi:10.1177/160940691401300123
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
28. Harvey, D. Management of Perceived Devastating Brain Injury after Hospital Admission a Consensus Statement Consensus Group Membership Endorsing Organisations (2018). doi:10.1177/1751143716670410
29. Manara, A, and Thomas, I. Current Status of Organ Donation after Brain Death in the UK. Anaesthesia (2020) 75(9):1205–14. doi:10.1111/anae.15038
30. Manara, A, Rubino, A, and Tisherman, S. ECPR and Organ Donation: Emerging Clarity in Decision Making. Resuscitation (2023) 193:110035. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.110035
31. World Population Review. ICU Beds Per Capita by Country (2024). Available from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/icu-beds-per-capita-by-country (Accessed May 22, 2023).
32. Rudge, CJ. Organ Donation: Opting in or Opting Out? Br J Gen Pract (2018) 68(667):62–3. doi:10.3399/bjgp18X694445
33. Nuffield Trust. Hospital Bed Occupancy (2023). Available from: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/hospital-bed-occupancy (Accessed May 22, 2023).
34. Martín-Delgado, MC, Martínez-Soba, F, Masnou, N, Pérez-Villares, JM, Pont, T, Sánchez Carretero, MJ, et al. Summary of Spanish Recommendations on Intensive Care to Facilitate Organ Donation. Am J Transpl (2019) 19(6):1782–91. doi:10.1111/ajt.15253
35. Noyes, J, Mclaughlin, L, Morgan, K, Roberts, A, Moss, B, Stephens, M, et al. Process Evaluation of Specialist Nurse Implementation of a Soft Opt-Out Organ Donation System in Wales. BMC Health Serv Res (2019) 19:414. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4266-z
36. Johnston-Webber, C, Mah, J, Prionas, A, Streit, S, Wharton, G, Forsythe, J, et al. Solid Organ Donation and Transplantation in the United Kingdom: Good Governance Is Key to Success. Transpl Int (2023) 36:11012. doi:10.3389/ti.2023.11012
37. Díaz-Cobacho, G, Cruz-Piqueras, M, Delgado, J, Hortal-Carmona, J, Martínez-López, MV, Molina-Pérez, A, et al. Public Perception of Organ Donation and Transplantation Policies in Southern Spain. Transpl Proc (2022) 54(3):567–74. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2022.02.007
38. Boadu, P, McLaughlin, L, and Noyes, J. Subgroup Differences in Public Attitudes, Preferences, and Self-Reported Behaviour Related to Deceased Organ Donation before and after the Introduction of the ‘soft’ Opt-Out Consent System in England: Mixed-Methods Study . BMC Heal Serv Res (2024).
39. Johnston-Webber, C, Mah, J, Streit, S, Prionas, A, Wharton, G, Mossialos, E, et al. A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating National Organ Donation and Transplantation Programs. Transpl Int (2023) 36:11006. doi:10.3389/ti.2023.11006
Keywords: organ donation, consent, England, Spain, opt-out
Citation: Rees K, Mclaughlin L, Paredes-Zapata D, Miller C, Mays N and Noyes J (2024) Qualitative Content and Discourse Analysis Comparing the Current Consent Systems for Deceased Organ Donation in Spain and England. Transpl Int 37:12533. doi: 10.3389/ti.2024.12533
Received: 06 December 2023; Accepted: 10 June 2024; Published: 04 July 2024.
Copyright © 2024 Rees, Mclaughlin, Paredes-Zapata, Miller, Mays and Noyes. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Leah Mclaughlin, [email protected] ; Jane Noyes, [email protected]
People also looked at.
Moral sensitivity and moral distress in iranian critical care nurses, nurses experiences of ethical dilemmas: a review, moral reckoning in nursing, a mixed methods study of moral distress among frontline nurses during the covid-19 pandemic., estimation of moral distress among nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis, explaining of nurses’ perception of professional relationship in the coronary care unit (ccu), re-examining the relationship between moral distress and moral agency in nursing., understanding and formation—a process of becoming a nurse, what is ‘moral distress’ a narrative synthesis of the literature, moral resilience: a capacity for navigating moral distress in critical care, related papers.
Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers
Well-being (WB) is associated with healthier and longer lives, more social connections, and workplace success. However, assessment of WB is primarily based on self-report measures. This mixed-methods research examined how diverse adults described the sources of their WB and whether such views differed by education, race, and gender. Data came from midlife and older adults from the Midlife in the United States Study who responded to the question “What do you do to make your life go well?” ( N = 2,118; 54% some college or less; 19% Black). We used directed content analysis to develop a codebook comprising 20 code groups. Three judges evaluated the presence of each code group within each open-ended response. Percent agreement among judges was strong (M = 0.91; range = 0.80-0.98). The most frequently mentioned sources of WB were Relationships, Positive Attitude, and Faith. Self-Awareness, Work, Coping, and Health themes were also common. Those with a bachelor’s degree or higher endorsed all code groups more than those with less education ( p s < 0.01), except for Faith ( p = .41). White adults endorsed all code groups more than Black adults ( p s < 0.001), except Black adults endorsed Faith more than White adults ( p < .001). Gender differences in WB code groups and correlations between code groups and self-reported WB are also reported. Findings point to key sources of WB and patterning by social structural forces, suggesting that social structural factors relate to how WB is experienced and described.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
De-identified data and documentation for the MIDUS study are available at https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/series/203 . Analytic code and supporting methodological information are available at https://osf.io/jqsmh/ .
Assari, S. (2017). Race, sense of control over life, and short-term risk of mortality among older adults in the United States. Archives of Medical Science: AMS , 13 (5), 1233–1240. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.59740 .
Article Google Scholar
Bingham, A. J., & Witkowsky, P. (2021). Deductive and inductive approaches to qualitative data analysis. Analyzing and interpreting qualitative data: After the interview (pp. 133–146). SAGE.
Blustein, D. L. (2008). The role of work in psychological health and well-being: A conceptual, historical, and public policy perspective. American Psychologist , 63 (4), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.4.228 .
Boehm, J. K., Chen, Y., Williams, D. R., Ryff, C., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2015). Unequally distributed psychological assets: Are there social disparities in optimism, life satisfaction, and positive affect? Plos One , 10 (2), e0118066. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118066 .
Boyd, R. L., & Schwartz, H. A. (2021). Natural language analysis and the psychology of verbal behavior: The past, present, and future states of the field. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 40 (1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20967028 .
Boylan, J. M., Cundiff, J. M., Fuller-Rowell, T. E., & Ryff, C. D. (2020). Childhood socioeconomic status and inflammation: Psychological moderators among black and White americans. Health Psychology , 39 (6), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000866 .
Brim, O. G., Ryff, C. D., & Kessler, R. C. (Eds.). (2004). How healthy are we? A National Study of Well-being at midlife . University of Chicago Press.
Cousineau, T. M., & Shedler, J. (2006). Predicting physical health: Implicit mental health measures versus self-report scales. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 194 (6). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000221373.74045.51 .
Daly, K. (2024). Qualitative Methods for Family Studies & Human Development (By pages 43–60). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452224800 .
Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80 (5), 804–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.804 .
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist , 55 (1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34 .
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment , 49 (1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 .
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Rev , 19 (2), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222 .
Graham, M., Milanowski, A., & Miller, J. (2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater agreement of teacher and principal performance ratings . Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532068.pdf
Guidelines for requesting unpublished MIDUS biomarker data . https://midus.wisc.edu/helpdesk.php .
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research , 15 (9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 .
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher , 33 (7), 14–26.
Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). Sociodemographic variations in the sense of control by domain: Findings from the MacArthur studies of midlife. Psychology and Aging , 13 (4), 553–562.
LaMarre, A., & Chamberlain, K. (2022). Innovating qualitative research methods: Proposals and possibilities. Methods in Psychology , 6 , 100083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100083 .
Lomas, T., Waters, L., Williams, P., Oades, L. G., & Kern, M. L. (2021). Third wave positive psychology: Broadening towards complexity. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 16 (5), 660–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1805501 .
Love, G. D., Seeman, T. E., Weinstein, M., & Ryff, C. D. (2010). Bioindicators in the MIDUS National Study: Protocol, measures, sample, and comparative context. Journal of Aging and Health , 22 (8), 1059–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264310374355 .
Markus, H. R., Ryff, C. D., Curhan, K. B., Palmersheim, K. A., Brim, O. G., Ryff, C. D., & Kessler, R. C. (2004). In their own words: Well-being at midlife among high school-educated and college-educated adults. How healthy are we? A National Study of Well-being at midlife (pp. 273–319). University of Chicago Press.
Masters, K. S., Boehm, J. K., Boylan, J. M., Vagnini, K. M., & Rush, C. L. (2023). The scientific study of positive psychology, religion/spirituality, and physical health. In E. B. Davis, J. E. L. Worthington, & S. A. Schnitker (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology, Religion, and spirituality . Springer Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10274-5_21 .
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. Theoretical foundation, basic procedures, and software solution. Klagenfurt. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173 .
McKinlay, A. R., Fancourt, D., & Burton, A. (2021). A qualitative study about the mental health and wellbeing of older adults in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Geriatrics , 21 (1), 439. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02367-8 .
Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) Series . https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/series/203 .
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2007). Life course trajectories of perceived control and their relationship to education. American Journal of Sociology , 112 (5), 1339–1382. https://doi.org/10.1086/511800 .
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2015). Education, health, and the default American lifestyle. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 56 (3), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146515594814 .
Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science , 6 (1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00298.x .
Office for National Statistics (2024, May). Measuring progress, well-being, and beyond GDP in the UK: May 2024 statistical bulletin. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/measuringprogresswellbeingandbeyondgdpintheuk/may2024 .
Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2012). Positive emotion word use and longevity in famous deceased psychologists. Health Psychology , 31 (3), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025339 .
Pressman, S. D., Matthews, K. A., Cohen, S., Martire, L. M., Scheier, M., Baum, A., & Schulz, R. (2009). Association of enjoyable leisure activities with psychological and physical well-being. Psychosomatic Medicine , 71 (7), 725–732. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181ad7978 .
Qureshi, F., Denckla, C., & Boehm, J. K. (2024). Positive epidemiology, revisited: The case for centering human rights and economic justice. American Journal of Epidemiology , kwae056. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae056 .
Radler, B. T., & Ryff, C. D. (2010). Who participates? Accounting for longitudinal retention in the MIDUS national study of health and well-being. Journal of Aging and Health , 22 (3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264309358617 .
Ratner, K., Burrow, A. L., Burd, K. A., & Hill, P. L. (2021). On the conflation of purpose and meaning in life: A qualitative study of high school and college student conceptions. Applied Developmental Science , 25 (4), 364–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2019.1659140 .
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57 (6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 .
Ryff, C. D., Boylan, J. M., & Kirsch, J. A. (2020). Disagreement about recommendations for measurement of well-being. Preventive Medicine , 139 , 106049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106049 .
Ryff, C., Boylan, J. M., & Kirsch, J. A. (2021). Eudaimonic and hedonic well-being: An integrative perspective with linkages to sociodemographic factors and health. In M. T. Lee, L. D. Kubzansky, & T. J. VanderWeele (Eds.), Measuring Well-Being: Interdisciplinary perspectives from the Social Sciences and the humanities . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197512531.003.0005 .
Saphire-Bernstein, S., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Close relationships and happiness. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, & A. Conley Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Happiness (pp. 821–833). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.013.0060 .
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67 (6), 1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1063 .
Shaw, B. A., & Krause, N. (2001). Exploring race variations in aging and personal control. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B , 56 (2), S119–S124. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/56.2.S119 .
Song, J., Radler, B. T., Lachman, M. E., Mailick, M. R., Si, Y., & Ryff, C. D. (2021). Who returns? Understanding varieties of longitudinal participation in MIDUS. Journal of Aging and Health , 33 (10), 896–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/08982643211018552 .
Steptoe, A. (2019). Happiness and health. Annual Review of Public Health , 40 , 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044150 .
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 29 (1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676 .
Topp, C. W., Østergaard, S. D., Søndergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 well-being index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics , 84 (3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585 .
van Zyl, L. E., Gaffaney, J., van der Vaart, L., Dik, B. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2024). The critiques and criticisms of positive psychology: A systematic review. The Journal of Positive Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2178956 . https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ .
VanderWeele, T. J., Trudel-Fitzgerald, C., Allin, P., Farrelly, C., Fletcher, G., Frederick, D. E., Hall, J., Helliwell, J. F., Kim, E. S., Lauinger, W. A., Lee, M. T., Lyubomirsky, S., Margolis, S., McNeely, E., Messer, N., Tay, L., Viswanath, V., Węziak-Białowolska, D., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2020). Current recommendations on the selection of measures for well-being. Preventive Medicine , 133 , 106004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106004 .
Vine, V., Boyd, R. L., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2020). Natural emotion vocabularies as windows on distress and well-being. Nature Communications , 11 (1), 4525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18349-0 .
Walsh, L. C., Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2018). Does happiness promote career success? Revisiting the evidence. Journal of Career Assessment , 26 (2), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717751441 .
Willen, S. S., Williamson, A. F., Walsh, C. C., Hyman, M., & Tootle, W. (2022). Rethinking flourishing: Critical insights and qualitative perspectives from the U.S. Midwest. SSM - Mental Health , 2 , 100057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2021.100057 .
Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies , 3 (2), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262
Download references
Findings described in this manuscript were presented at the annual meetings for the Midlife in the United States Study (May 2023 in Madison, WI) and the American Psychosomatic Society (March 2023 in San Juan, Puerto Rico). Findings were also presented virtually at the core meeting for the Network for Emotional Well-Being (April 2023). This work was supported by a grant from the Network for Emotional Well-being and Stress Measurement Network (through the National Institutes of Health). The MIDUS Study was supported by the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health (P01-AG020166; U19-AG051426) to conduct a longitudinal follow-up of the MIDUS investigation. The baseline MIDUS study was supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Midlife Development. Support also came from the following grants M01- RR023942 (Georgetown), M01-RR00865 (UCLA) from the General Clinical Research Centers Program and 1UL1RR025011 (UW) from the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program of the National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. De-identified data and documentation for the MIDUS study are available at https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/series/203 . Analytic code and supporting methodological information are available at https://osf.io/jqsmh/ .
Jennifer Morozink Boylan and Julia K. Boehm contributed equally to this work.
Department of Health and Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA
Jennifer Morozink Boylan & Monica Adams
Department of Psychology, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA
Julia K. Boehm
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Jennifer Morozink Boylan .
Competing interests.
The authors have no competing interests that are relevant to the content of this article and no financial interests to disclose.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
Boylan, J.M., Adams, M. & Boehm, J.K. Social Structural Differences in Qualitative Perspectives on Well-Being. Applied Research Quality Life (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-024-10344-7
Download citation
Received : 17 January 2024
Accepted : 19 June 2024
Published : 06 July 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-024-10344-7
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Background Pediatric cancer is a significant and growing burden in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this project was to describe the factors influencing access to pediatric cancer care in Northern Tanzania using the Three Delays Model.
Methods This was a cross-sectional qualitative study conducted between June and September 2023 at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre (KCMC). Parents and caregivers of children obtaining pediatric cancer care at KCMC were approached for participation in in-depth interviews (IDIs) and a demographic survey. All IDIs were facilitated in Swahili by a bilingual research coordinator. Thirteen IDIs and surveys were completed during the study period. Analysis utilized inductive and deductive coding approaches to identify dominant themes and sub-themes impacting access to pediatric oncology care.
Results Participants reported significant financial barriers to accessing pediatric cancer care along the entire care continuum. Early delays were impacted by waiting for symptoms to resolve or worsen. The most substantial delays resulted from health infrastructure at mid-level health facilities, misdiagnoses, and delayed referral to KCMC for treatment. Participants did not describe delays after arrival to KCMC and rather offered perspective on their child’s cancer diagnosis, their concerns while obtaining care, and their hopes for the future. Financial support provided by the Tanzanian government was the only facilitator noted by participants.
Conclusions We suggest targeted interventions including 1) empowerment of CHWs and local traditional healers to advocate for earlier care seeking behavior, 2) implementation of clinical structures and training at intermediary medical centers aimed at earlier referral to a treatment facility, 3) incorporation of support and education initiatives for families of children with a cancer diagnosis. Lastly, we suggest that national health plans include pediatric cancer care.
The authors have declared no competing interest.
This project was funded by the Duke Global Health Institute Graduate Student funds (MM and PE), and the National Institutes of Health K01 Grant #5K01TW012181 (ERS). No other authors received specific funding for this work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Data storage and study procedures were approved by the Duke University and KCMC institutional review boards (IRBs) and the Tanzania National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) prior to the commencement of the study. We utilized the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines which is included as supplemental information with this manuscript.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Data are only available upon reasonable request and data transfer requires a written agreement approved by Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre Ethics Committee and the National Institute for Medical Research (Tanzania). Data inquiries can be sent to Gwamaka W. Nselela at gwamakawilliam14{at}gmail.com . A Data Transfer Agreement must be completed between the study investigators and the individual or entity requesting access to the study data before the data may be shared.
View the discussion thread.
Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.
NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Content analysis is a research method used to identify patterns in recorded communication. To conduct content analysis, you systematically collect data from a set of texts, which can be written, oral, or visual: Books, newspapers and magazines. Speeches and interviews. Web content and social media posts. Photographs and films.
This is a qualitative research method because the focus is on the meanings and interpretations of that content rather than strictly numerical counts or variables-based causal modeling. [1] ... Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Thousand Okas, CA: SAGE. Arguably the most accessible guidebook for QCA, written by a professor based in ...
In qualitative research, several analysis methods can be used, for example, phenomenology, hermeneutics, grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenographic and content analysis (Burnard, 1995). In contrast to qualitive research methods, qualitative content analysis is not linked to any particular science, and there are fewer rules to follow.
The different qualitative content analysis methods available are not seen as distinct from other methods such as thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021a; Schreier, 2012; Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Some authors have even suggested that qualitative content analysis is only semantically different from thematic analysis (e.g., Kuckartz, 2019). This ...
There is a growing recognition for the important role played by qualitative research and its usefulness in many fields, including the emergency care context in Africa. Novice qualitative researchers are often daunted by the prospect of qualitative data analysis and thus may experience much difficulty in the data analysis process.
Content analysis is a qualitative analysis method that focuses on recorded human artefacts such as manuscripts, voice recordings and journals. Content analysis investigates these written, spoken and visual artefacts without explicitly extracting data from participants - this is called unobtrusive research. In other words, with content ...
Qualitative content analysis (cf. Mayring, 2015b, 2020, 2021; Kuckartz, 2014) is a methodological approach to text analysis mainly in social sciences, which can be used in empirical research projects working with textual material like interview or group discussion transcripts, open observational protocols (field notes) or document analyses ...
Content analysis can be used to study a wide range of topics, including media coverage of social issues, political speeches, advertising messages, and online discussions, among others. It is often used in qualitative research and can be combined with other methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon.
Step 1: Select the content you will analyse. Based on your research question, choose the texts that you will analyse. You need to decide: The medium (e.g., newspapers, speeches, or websites) and genre (e.g., opinion pieces, political campaign speeches, or marketing copy)
Abstract. In this chapter, the focus is on ways in which content analysis can be used to investigate and describe interview and textual data. The chapter opens with a contextualization of the method and then proceeds to an examination of the role of content analysis in relation to both quantitative and qualitative modes of social research.
5 Qualitative Research and Content Analysis. Qualitative research is performed to study and understand phenomena in their natural contexts. As such, qualitative research focuses on—and respects—people's experiences and perspectives, neither of which can be described through objective measurements or numbers.
Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm.
Thematic analysis, often called Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) in Europe, is one of the most commonly used methods for analyzing qualitative data (Guest et al. 2012; Kuckartz 2014; Mayring 2014, 2015; Schreier 2012).This chapter presents the basics of this systematic method of qualitative data analysis, highlights its key characteristics, and describes a typical workflow.
The techniques of Qualitative Content Analysis have become a standard procedure of text analysis within the social sciences. In their bibliometrical analysis of the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI, 1991-1998), Titscher et al. found Qualitative Content Analysis in seventh place (after Grounded Theory, Ethnography, Standardized Content Analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis, Conversation ...
Thematic analysis and qualitative content analysis are two popular approaches used to analyze qualitative data. Confusingly, the two research approaches are often defined in similar ways or even used interchangeably in defining literature. We clarify the difference between thematic analysis and the common forms of qualitative content analysis.
"Content analysis is a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words, themes, or concepts within some given qualitative data (i.e. text). Using content analysis, researchers can quantify and analyze the presence, meanings, and relationships of such certain words, themes, or concepts." Source: Columbia Public Health
The term "content analysis" is used in two distinct ways in methodological discourse. The first defines the term broadly as analyzing qualitative data sources, as in "analyzing content.". The second definition is a specific approach to qualitative data analysis that uses word and term searches to identify patterns in language use in ...
Qualitative content analysis is a research method used to analyze and interpret the content of textual data, such as written documents, interview transcripts, or other forms of communication. This guide introduces qualitative content analysis, explains the different types of qualitative content analysis, and provides a step-by-step guide for ...
quantitative content analysis is deductive, intended to test hypotheses or address questions generated from theories or previous empirical research. By contrast, qualitative content analysis is mainly inductive, grounding the examination of topics and themes, as well as the inferences drawn from them, in the data. In some cases, qualitative content
It is a flexible research method ( Anastas, 1999 ). Qualitative content analysis may use either newly collected data, existing texts and materials, or a combination of both. It may be used in exploratory, descriptive, comparative, or explanatory research designs, though its primary use is descriptive.
Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm.
Qualitative content analysis is one of the several qualita-tive methods currently available for analyzing data and inter-preting its meaning (Schreier, 2012). As a research method, it represents a systematic and objective means of describing and quantifying phenomena (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992; Schreier, 2012).
Hsiu-Fang Hsieh Sarah E. Shannon. Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conven-tional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere ...
A common starting point for qualitative content analysis is often transcribed interview texts. The objective in qualitative content analysis is to systematically transform a large amount of text into a highly organised and concise summary of key results. Analysis of the raw data from verbatim transcribed interviews to form categories or themes ...
Defining Content Analysis As a research method, content analysis exists somewhere between purely quantitative and purely qualitative. In the study of crime in the media, re-search ranges from studies that count or otherwise quantify texts for the purpose of statistical analysis to studies that explore presentation and rep-
England switched to an opt-out system of consent in 2020 aiming to increase the number of organs available. Spain also operates an opt-out system yet has almost twice the organ donations per million population compared with England. We aimed to identify both differences and similarities in the consent policies, documents and procedures in deceased donation between the two countries using ...
RESEARCH DESIGN This descriptive qualitative study was conducted in 2022 using directed content analysis. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT Eighteen nurses were purposively recruited from three teaching hospitals affiliated to Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
Aim 1: Qualitative Data Coding. Directed content analysis was used to code the open-ended responses. Directed content analysis is a deductive method that develops codes from theory and involves building a codebook prior to data analysis, with new codes added to the codebook throughout the data analysis process (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
Background Pediatric cancer is a significant and growing burden in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this project was to describe the factors influencing access to pediatric cancer care in Northern Tanzania using the Three Delays Model. Methods This was a cross-sectional qualitative study conducted between June and September 2023 at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre (KCMC).