Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

Implementation Science

Sarah L. Cutrona¹  Andrea L. Nevedal²  Brandolyn S. White³  George L. Jackson⁴  Laura J. Damschroder⁵  Caitlin M. Reardon⁵  Marilla A. Opra Widerquist⁵ 

[1] Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers, Boston, USA;Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA;Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA;Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPD), 795 Willow Road, Building 324, 94025, Menlo Park, CA, USA;Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, USA;Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, USA;Department of Population Health Science, Duke University, Durham, USA;Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, Durham, USA;Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University, Durham, USA;Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd. (152), 48105, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;

关键词: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR);    Qualitative methods;    Rapid analysis;    Implementation science;    Veterans;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-021-01111-5

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundQualitative 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.MethodsSemi-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.ResultsCohorts 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.ConclusionOur 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.

【 授权许可】

CC BY