skip to main content

Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

Nevedal, Andrea L ; Reardon, Caitlin M ; Opra Widerquist, Marilla A ; Jackson, George L ; Cutrona, Sarah L ; White, Brandolyn S ; Damschroder, Laura J

Implementation science : IS, 2021-07, Vol.16 (1), p.1-67, Article 67 [Periódico revisado por pares]

London: BioMed Central Ltd

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
  • Autor: Nevedal, Andrea L ; Reardon, Caitlin M ; Opra Widerquist, Marilla A ; Jackson, George L ; Cutrona, Sarah L ; White, Brandolyn S ; Damschroder, Laura J
  • Assuntos: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) ; Content analysis ; Data collection ; Data entry ; Implementation science ; Interdisciplinary research ; Interviews ; Medical research ; Medicine, Experimental ; Methodology ; Methods ; Qualitative methods ; Qualitative research ; Rapid analysis ; Software ; Sound recordings ; Veterans
  • É parte de: Implementation science : IS, 2021-07, Vol.16 (1), p.1-67, Article 67
  • Notas: ObjectType-Article-1
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-2
    content type line 23
  • Descrição: Abstract Background Qualitative approaches, alone or in mixed methods, are prominent within implementation science. However, traditional qualitative approaches are resource intensive, which has led to the development of rapid qualitative approaches. Published rapid approaches are often inductive in nature and rely on transcripts of interviews. We describe a deductive rapid analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted for two cohorts of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE). The CFIR guided data collection and analysis. 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. 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. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor. Results Cohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. 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. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches. Conclusion Our rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. 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.
  • Editor: London: BioMed Central Ltd
  • Idioma: Inglês

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.