Suppr超能文献

作为一名定量访谈者:在一项纵向队列研究中定性探讨访谈者的经验。

Being a quantitative interviewer: qualitatively exploring interviewers' experiences in a longitudinal cohort study.

机构信息

Injury Prevention Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Dec 13;11:165. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-165.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Many studies of health outcomes rely on data collected by interviewers administering highly-structured (quantitative) questionnaires to participants. Little appears to be known about the experiences of such interviewers. This paper explores interviewer experiences of working on a longitudinal study in New Zealand (the Prospective Outcomes of injury Study--POIS). Interviewers administer highly-structured questionnaires to participants, usually by telephone, and enter data into a secure computer program. The research team had expectations of interviewers including: consistent questionnaire administration, timeliness, proportions of potential participants recruited and an empathetic communication style. This paper presents results of a focus group to qualitatively explore with the team of interviewers their experiences, problems encountered, strategies, support systems used and training.

METHODS

A focus group with interviewers involved in the POIS interviews was held; it was audio-recorded and transcribed. The analytical method was thematic, with output intended to be descriptive and interpretive.

RESULTS

Nine interviewers participated in the focus group (average time in interviewer role was 31 months). Key themes were: 1) the positive aspects of the quantitative interviewer role (i.e. relationships and resilience, insights gained, and participants' feedback), 2) difficulties interviewers encountered and solutions identified (i.e. stories lost or incomplete, forgotten appointments, telling the stories, acknowledging distress, stories reflected and debriefing and support), and 3) meeting POIS researcher expectations (i.e. performance standards, time-keeping, dealing exclusively with the participant and maintaining privacy).

CONCLUSIONS

Interviewers demonstrated great skill in the way they negotiated research team expectations whilst managing the relationships with participants. Interviewers found it helpful to have a research protocol in place in the event of sensitive situations--this appeared to alleviate the pressure on interviewers to carry the burden of responsibility. Interviewers are employed to scientifically gather quantitative data, yet their effectiveness relies largely on their humanity. We propose that the personal connection generated between the interviewers and participants was important, and enabled successful follow-up rates for the study. The enjoyment of these relationships was crucial to interviewers and helped balance the negative aspects of their role. Our results suggest that experienced quantitative interviewers endeavour, as do many qualitative researchers, to carefully and respectfully negotiate the requirements of the interview within a relationship they form with participants: being sensitive to the needs of participants and respectful of their wishes--and establishing an ethical relationship.

摘要

背景

许多健康结果研究依赖于采访者向参与者发放高度结构化(定量)问卷来收集数据。关于采访者的经验,似乎鲜为人知。本文探讨了在新西兰进行的一项纵向研究(前瞻性伤害研究-POIS)中采访者的经验。采访者通过电话向参与者发放高度结构化的问卷,并将数据输入安全的计算机程序。研究小组对采访者有以下期望:一致的问卷管理、及时性、潜在参与者的比例和富有同情心的沟通方式。本文介绍了焦点小组的结果,该小组对参与 POIS 访谈的采访者进行了定性探讨,了解他们的经验、遇到的问题、策略、使用的支持系统和培训。

方法

对参与 POIS 访谈的采访者进行焦点小组讨论;对其进行录音和转录。分析方法是主题式的,输出旨在具有描述性和解释性。

结果

9 名采访者参加了焦点小组(担任采访者的平均时间为 31 个月)。主要主题包括:1)定量采访者角色的积极方面(即关系和适应能力、获得的见解以及参与者的反馈),2)采访者遇到的困难和发现的解决方案(即丢失或不完整的故事、遗忘的约会、讲述故事、承认痛苦、反映故事和汇报以及支持),3)满足 POIS 研究人员的期望(即绩效标准、守时、专门与参与者打交道和维护隐私)。

结论

采访者在与参与者建立关系的同时,展现了出色的技能,成功地协调了研究团队的期望。采访者发现,在出现敏感情况时制定研究方案很有帮助,这似乎减轻了采访者承担责任的压力。采访者受雇于科学地收集定量数据,但他们的工作效率在很大程度上取决于他们的人性。我们提出,采访者与参与者之间建立的个人联系很重要,并且使研究的后续率成功。这些关系的乐趣对采访者来说至关重要,有助于平衡他们角色的负面方面。我们的研究结果表明,经验丰富的定量采访者努力与许多定性研究人员一样,在他们与参与者建立的关系中谨慎而恭敬地协商访谈的要求:对参与者的需求敏感,尊重他们的意愿——并建立一种道德关系。

相似文献

2
Reflections on researcher departure: Closure of prison relationships in ethnographic research.
Nurs Ethics. 2019 Aug;26(5):1424-1441. doi: 10.1177/0969733017747959. Epub 2018 Feb 19.
3
The impact of using peer interviewers in a study of patient empowerment amongst people in cancer follow-up.
Health Expect. 2018 Jun;21(3):620-627. doi: 10.1111/hex.12655. Epub 2017 Dec 5.
4
Student and educator experiences of maternal-child simulation-based learning: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):14-26. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1694.
6
Orienting multiple interviewers: the use of an interview orientation and standardized interview.
Qual Health Res. 2006 Nov;16(9):1302-9. doi: 10.1177/1049732306290130.
8
At what risk? A research note on interviewer burden.
BMC Res Notes. 2024 Jul 5;17(1):186. doi: 10.1186/s13104-024-06839-z.
9
Exploring researchers' experiences of working with people with acquired brain injury.
Brain Inj. 2015;29(5):592-600. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2014.1002422. Epub 2015 Mar 19.

本文引用的文献

1
Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study: recruitment, and participant characteristics, health and disability status.
Inj Prev. 2011 Dec;17(6):415-8. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2011-040044. Epub 2011 Jul 1.
2
Prospective outcomes of injury study.
Inj Prev. 2009 Oct;15(5):e3. doi: 10.1136/ip.2009.022558a.
4
Exploring painful experiences: impact of emotional narratives on members of a qualitative research team.
J Adv Nurs. 2006 Dec;56(6):607-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04039.x.
5
Sensitive topics, survey nonresponse, and considerations for interviewer training.
Am J Prev Med. 2006 Nov;31(5):419-26. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.010. Epub 2006 Sep 25.
6
Can we talk? Importance of random-digit-dial surveys for injury prevention research.
Am J Prev Med. 2006 Nov;31(5):406-10. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.012. Epub 2006 Sep 26.
7
Implementing the British Columbia Nutrition Survey: perspectives of interviewers and facilitators.
Can J Diet Pract Res. 2004 Summer;65(2):59-64. doi: 10.3148/65.2.2004.59.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验