This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Tishelman, C. Articles by Törnberg, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tishelman, C. Articles by Törnberg, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Research on Risk and Risk in Research: Theoretical and Practical Experiences from a Multidisciplinary Study on Cervical Cancer Screening in Urban Sweden

Karolinska Institute, Department of Nursing and the Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institute, carol.tishelman{at}phs.ki.se

Anette Forss

Stockholm University, Karolinska Institute

Lisbeth Sachs

Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University, Karolinska Institute

Eva-Lisa Lundgren

Department of Nursing, Karolinska Institute

Catarina Widmark

Department of Nursing and the Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institute

Sven Törnberg

Cancer Screening Unit at the Oncologic Centre in Stockholm

This article describes a qualitative research project on secondary cancer prevention that was conducted using a multidisciplinary team and that was inspired by perspectives from feminist research and fourth-generation evaluation. A screening program for cervical cancer was investigated from the perspective of different stakeholders through a series of substudies using a variety of qualitative approaches, in order to have a broad basis for consideration and negotiation of improvements. The first sections of this article describe the theoretical and methodological basis for the project, which triangulates a variety of qualitative and quantitative research strategies, whereas the latter sections describe some of our experiences, positive and negative, as a research team (and thus also as stakeholders) in actually conducting the studies.

Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, 45-60 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/104973299129121686


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. M. Maclean, E. Diem, C. Bouchard, K. Robertson-Palmer, N. Edwards, and M. O'Hagan Complexity and Team Dynamics in Multiple Intervention Programmes: Challenges and Insights for Public Health Psychology J Health Psychol, March 1, 2007; 12(2): 341 - 351. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Thorne, T. G. Hislop, M. Kuo, and E.-A. Armstrong Hope and Probability: Patient Perspectives of the Meaning of Numerical Information in Cancer Communication Qual Health Res, March 1, 2006; 16(3): 318 - 336. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. A. Hall, B. Long, N. Bermbach, S. Jordan, and K. Patterson Qualitative Teamwork Issues and Strategies: Coordination Through Mutual Adjustment Qual Health Res, March 1, 2005; 15(3): 394 - 410. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Young, H. Tattersall, K. Uus, J. Bamford, and W. McCracken To What Extent Do the Characteristics of the Object of Evaluation Influence the Choice of Epistemological Framework? The Case of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Qual Health Res, July 1, 2004; 14(6): 866 - 874. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Richards Qualitative Teamwork: Making it Work Qual Health Res, January 1, 1999; 9(1): 7 - 10. [PDF]