In contrast, rapid qualitative analysis is deliberately streamlined and designed to be less resource intensive in order to meet a shorter timeframe.
#Nvivo 10 link memo to internal manual
Many traditional qualitative analysis approaches include in-depth manual coding of transcripts using software programs. Traditionally, qualitative analysis approaches have been resource intensive and occur over a longer timeframe they include, but are not limited to, constant comparison, content, discourse, or thematic analysis. Īn important element of rapid assessment is rapid qualitative analysis, which is the focus of this paper. As a result, rapid assessment, which often involves streamlined processes for qualitative data collection and analysis, is gaining increased attention as a way to support quicker implementation and dissemination of EBIs to reduce delays in translating clinical research into practice.
The need for this balance is particularly salient in healthcare, where treatments and interventions are rapidly evolving, and evaluations of such interventions are constrained by limited timelines, funding, and staffing. Ĭonsequently, qualitative researchers are working to develop methods that balance rigor and efficiency. This is especially problematic in studies where scientists need real-time data to inform the process of implementation. Traditional qualitative approaches, however, are resource intensive, which challenges constrained study timelines and budgets. As a result, qualitative approaches (alone or within mixed methods) are foundational for implementation scientists seeking to identify and understand factors that help or hinder the implementation and use of EBIs in real-world settings. Qualitative methods are invaluable for gathering in-depth information about “how and why efforts” to implement Evidence-Based Innovations (EBIs) succeed or fail. Researchers should consider the following when employing our approach: (1) team expertise in the CFIR and qualitative methods, (2) level of detail needed to meet project aims, (3) mode of data to analyze, and (4) advantages and disadvantages of using the CFIR. Our rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches. The facility-level analysis phase provided the greatest savings: 14 h/facility for the traditional analysis versus 3.92 h/facility for the rapid analysis. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. ResultsĬohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. In cohort B, we used our new rapid CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately “coded” notes into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited the matrix. In cohort A, we used our traditional CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where two analysts completed independent in-depth manual coding of interview transcripts using qualitative software. The CFIR guided data collection and analysis.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted for two cohorts of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE). This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach. We describe a deductive rapid analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. Published rapid approaches are often inductive in nature and rely on transcripts of interviews. However, traditional qualitative approaches are resource intensive, which has led to the development of rapid qualitative approaches. Qualitative approaches, alone or in mixed methods, are prominent within implementation science.