Brown Rachel, Cigarroa Kennedy Sofia, Carranco Chávez Elena, Dumeng-Rodriguez Jeriel, Cullen Danielle
Policylab and Clinical Futures, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2716 South Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA.
Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Implement Sci Commun. 2025 Mar 3;6(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s43058-025-00709-w.
Qualitative methodologies offer a nuanced approach to understanding stakeholder perspectives, preferences, and context in implementation research. However, traditional qualitative data analysis can be time consuming and create barriers to responsive implementation of interventions. Rapid qualitative methods that yield timely, actionable results have emerged to expedite the evidence-to-practice gap, but often require all analysts to have implementation science expertise and resources for interview transcription. This study describes a novel rapid qualitative method to identify participant-driven social care recommendations in real time.
Caregivers of pediatric patients were enrolled onsite at two primary care clinics and one emergency department affiliated with a large urban pediatric healthcare system. A semi-structured interview guide was developed using the Health Equity Implementation Framework and Integrated Behavioral Model in partnership with multidisciplinary implementation stakeholders. Telephone interviews explored 60 caregivers' experiences with and perceptions of receiving social resources from healthcare. For traditional analysis, NVivo12 was used to code the first 10 verbatim transcripts to generate themes in an integrated inductive/deductive approach. In the rapid approach, a summary notes template designed to capture implementation-related data was completed immediately following the same 10 interviews. A secondary analyst used the templates to create participant-level summaries and identify implementation-related themes. Themes found in each method were quantified and mapped onto each other using an analytic matrix to compare the number and consistency of themes.
Themes generated in both methods mapped consistently onto each other; 92.8% of themes found in traditional analysis were accounted for within our rapid method. The quantity of themes was similar between the two methods: the traditional approach generated 69 themes and 22 subthemes, while our rapid approach generated 72 themes and 21 subthemes.
Our interview notes-based rapid qualitative method was successful in producing themes consistent with the traditional approach in both content and quantity. This approach is also pragmatic, as it does not require analysts to have deep implementation science expertise and saves transcription costs. By balancing rigor with time to actionable results, this rapid method provides a tool for implementation researchers to generate qualitative findings on an accelerated timeline to inform policy and practice.
This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, #NCT05251311, https://www.
gov/study/NCT05251311 , on September 30, 2021.
定性方法为理解利益相关者在实施研究中的观点、偏好和背景提供了一种细致入微的方法。然而，传统的定性数据分析可能耗时且对干预措施的响应性实施造成障碍。为缩小证据与实践之间的差距，已出现能产生及时、可操作结果的快速定性方法，但通常要求所有分析人员具备实施科学专业知识以及用于访谈转录的资源。本研究描述了一种新颖的快速定性方法，可实时识别参与者驱动的社会护理建议。
在一家大型城市儿科医疗系统所属的两家初级保健诊所和一个急诊科现场招募儿科患者的护理人员。与多学科实施利益相关者合作，利用健康公平实施框架和综合行为模型制定了一份半结构化访谈指南。电话访谈探讨了60名护理人员接受医疗保健社会资源的经历和看法。对于传统分析，使用NVivo12对前10份逐字记录进行编码，以综合归纳/演绎的方法生成主题。在快速分析方法中，在完成同样的10次访谈后，立即填写一份旨在收集与实施相关数据的总结笔记模板。一名二级分析人员使用这些模板创建参与者层面的总结并确定与实施相关的主题。使用分析矩阵对每种方法中发现的主题进行量化并相互映射，以比较主题的数量和一致性。
两种方法生成的主题相互一致地映射；在我们的快速分析方法中涵盖了传统分析中发现的92.8%的主题。两种方法的主题数量相似：传统方法生成了69个主题和22个子主题，而我们的快速分析方法生成了72个主题和21个子主题。
我们基于访谈笔记的快速定性方法在内容和数量上均成功产生了与传统方法一致的主题。这种方法也很实用，因为它不要求分析人员具备深厚的实施科学专业知识，还节省了转录成本。通过在严谨性与可操作结果的及时性之间取得平衡，这种快速分析方法为实施研究人员提供了一种工具，可在加速的时间线上生成定性研究结果，为政策和实践提供参考。
本研究于2021年9月30日在ClinicalTrials.gov注册，编号为#NCT05251311，网址为https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05251311 。
