Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPD), 795 Willow Road, Building 324, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA.
Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd. (152), Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA.
Implement Sci. 2021 Jul 2;16(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01111-5.
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.
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.
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.
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.
定性方法，无论是单独使用还是混合使用，在实施科学中都很突出。然而，传统的定性方法资源密集，这导致了快速定性方法的发展。已发表的快速方法通常具有归纳性质，并依赖于访谈的文字记录。我们描述了一种使用整合实施研究框架（CFIR）的演绎式快速分析方法，该方法使用笔记和录音。本文比较了我们的快速与传统演绎 CFIR 方法。
对退伍军人健康管理局（VHA）卓越扩散（DoE）的两个队列进行了半结构化访谈。CFIR 指导数据收集和分析。在队列 A 中，我们使用传统的基于 CFIR 的演绎分析方法（有针对性的内容分析），两位分析师使用定性软件对访谈记录进行独立的深入手动编码。在队列 B 中，我们使用新的基于快速 CFIR 的演绎分析方法（有针对性的内容分析），主要分析师在访谈过程中撰写详细的笔记，并立即通过设施矩阵将笔记“编码”到 MS Excel CFIR 结构中；第二位分析师随后听取录音并编辑矩阵。我们使用电子表格跟踪我们传统和快速演绎 CFIR 方法的时间，并从发票中捕获转录成本。我们回顾性地比较了我们的方法在有效性和严谨性方面的差异。
队列 A 和 B 在收集的数据量方面相似。然而，我们的快速演绎 CFIR 方法需要 409.5 个分析师小时，而传统演绎 CFIR 方法则需要 683 个小时。快速演绎 CFIR 方法消除了 7250 美元的转录成本。设施层面的分析阶段提供了最大的节省：传统分析每个设施需要 14 小时，而快速分析每个设施需要 3.92 小时。两种方法的数据解释都需要相同数量的时间。
我们的快速演绎 CFIR 方法耗时较少，且消除了转录成本，但有效满足了评估目标并建立了严谨性。研究人员在采用我们的方法时应考虑以下因素：（1）对 CFIR 和定性方法的团队专业知识，（2）满足项目目标所需的详细程度，（3）要分析的数据模式，以及（4）使用 CFIR 的优缺点。
