Greenwood Melanie, Kendrick Tina, Davies Hugh, Gill Fenella J
School of Health Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 135, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
NETS, NSW, School of Health Sciences, University of Tasmania, Australia.
Appl Nurs Res. 2017 Jun;35:90-93. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2017.02.024. Epub 2017 Mar 23.
This paper compares two qualitative approaches used to thematically analyse data obtained from focus groups conducted with critical care nurses from Australia.
Focus groups are an effective mechanism to generate understanding and gain insight into the research participants' world. Traditional verbatim transcription of participants' recorded words necessitates significant investment of time and resources. An alternative approach under reported in the literature is to directly analyse the audio recordings. To identify the effectiveness of the audio recording only approach, the study aimed to independently compare two qualitative methods of data analysis, namely the traditional transcribed method with the audio recording method.
The study to revise the specialist critical care competency standards included focus groups conducted in each state in Australia (n=12) facilitated by experienced researchers. Two of the research team analysed transcribed focus group data and two team members were blinded to the transcription process and directly analysed audio recordings from the focus groups. A process of thematic analysis used independently by the two teams was used to identify themes.
When the findings were compared, the themes generated using each technique were consistent and there were no different themes or subthemes identified. The two techniques appeared to be comparable. Overarching key themes were consistent with the approach.
The direct analysis method appears to have advantages. It is cost effective, trustworthy and possibly a superior alternative when used with focus group data. However, the audio only method requires experienced researchers who understand the context and if combining the two approaches takes time to do.
本文比较了两种定性方法，用于对从澳大利亚重症监护护士焦点小组获得的数据进行主题分析。
焦点小组是一种有效的机制，可用于深入理解和洞察研究参与者的世界。对参与者记录的话语进行传统的逐字转录需要大量的时间和资源投入。文献中报道较少的一种替代方法是直接分析音频记录。为了确定仅音频记录方法的有效性，该研究旨在独立比较两种定性数据分析方法，即传统的转录方法和音频记录方法。
修订专科重症监护能力标准的研究包括在澳大利亚每个州（n = 12）由经验丰富的研究人员主持的焦点小组。研究团队中的两人分析了焦点小组转录的数据，另外两名团队成员对转录过程不知情，直接分析焦点小组的音频记录。两个团队独立使用主题分析过程来识别主题。
比较结果时，使用每种技术生成的主题是一致的，没有识别出不同的主题或子主题。这两种技术似乎具有可比性。总体关键主题与该方法一致。
直接分析方法似乎具有优势。它具有成本效益、可靠，并且在与焦点小组数据一起使用时可能是一种更好的选择。然而，仅音频方法需要了解背景的经验丰富的研究人员，并且如果将两种方法结合起来则需要花费时间。
