Mozersky Jessica, Friedrich Annie B, DuBois James M
Bioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Int J Qual Methods. 2022 Jan-Dec;21. doi: 10.1177/16094069221105074. Epub 2022 May 31.
We conducted a qualitative content analysis of health science literature ( = 100) involving qualitative interviews or focus groups. Given recent data sharing mandates, our goal was to characterize the nature of relationships between the researchers and participants to inform ethical deliberations regarding qualitative data sharing and secondary analyses. Specifically, some researchers worry that data sharing might harm relationships, while others claim that data cannot be analyzed absent meaningful relationships with participants. We found little evidence of relationship building with participants. The majority of studies involve single encounters (95%), lasting less than 60 min (59%), with less than half of authors involved in primary data collection. Our findings suggest that relationships with participants might not pose a barrier to sharing some qualitative data collected in the health sciences and speak to the feasibility in principle of secondary analyses of these data.
我们对100篇涉及定性访谈或焦点小组的健康科学文献进行了定性内容分析。鉴于最近的数据共享要求,我们的目标是描述研究人员与参与者之间关系的性质,为有关定性数据共享和二次分析的伦理审议提供信息。具体而言,一些研究人员担心数据共享可能会损害关系,而另一些人则声称,没有与参与者建立有意义的关系就无法进行数据分析。我们几乎没有发现与参与者建立关系的证据。大多数研究涉及单次接触(95%),持续时间不到60分钟(59%),参与原始数据收集的作者不到一半。我们的研究结果表明,与参与者的关系可能不会对共享健康科学中收集的一些定性数据构成障碍,并说明了对这些数据进行二次分析在原则上的可行性。