↓ Skip to main content

Using internet-based approaches to collect qualitative data from vulnerable groups: reflections from the field

Overview of attention for article published in Contemporary Nurse, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 537)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using internet-based approaches to collect qualitative data from vulnerable groups: reflections from the field
Published in
Contemporary Nurse, October 2015
DOI 10.1080/10376178.2015.1095056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Neville, Jeffery Adams, Catherine Cook

Abstract

Background Undertaking qualitative research with vulnerable populations is a complex and challenging process for researchers. Traditional and common modes of collecting qualitative data with these groups have been via face-to-face recorded interviews. Method This article reports on three internet-based data collection methods; email and synchronous online interviews, as well as online qualitative survey. Results The key characteristics of using email, sychronous online interviews and an online qualitative survey including the strengths and limitations of each are presented. Reflections and insights on the use of these internet-based data collection methods are provided to encourage researchers to embrace technology and move away from using traditional face-to-face interviews when researching with vulnerable populations. Conclusion Using the internet to collect qualitative data offers additional ways to gather qualitative data over traditional data collection methods. The use of alternative interview methods may encourage participation of vulnerable participants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 47 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 13%
Psychology 13 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 48 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,350,526
of 24,777,509 outputs
Outputs from Contemporary Nurse
#33
of 537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,956
of 289,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Contemporary Nurse
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,777,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,093 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.