Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis
Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019993
复制
发表时间：
2018-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Greenfield, Sheila
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Taylor, Beck;Henshall, Catherine;Greenfield, Sheila
Objectives本研究比较了快速和传统的分析英国卫生服务评估数据集，探讨研究人员的时间和一致性的outputs.Design混合方法研究，定量和定性比较定性方法设置数据从一个家庭分娩服务评估研究在英国国民健康服务，这发生在2014年10月至12月的医院。两个研究小组独立分析了焦点小组和访谈记录数据：一个小组使用了使用框架方法的主题分析方法，第二个小组使用了快速分析方法。参与者家庭分娩助产士（6），助产士支助工作者（4），专员（4），管理人员（6），和社区助产士（12）和病人代表（1）参加了最初的研究。主要结果测量完成分析所需的时间（人小时）;结果快速分析数据管理所需时间少于专题分析（43小时vs 116.5小时）。快速分析需要100个小时，专题分析总共需要126.5个小时，快速分析的口译和撰写时间要长得多（52小时对8小时）。快速分析结果与专题分析结果的重叠率为79%，专题分析结果与快速分析结果的重叠率为63%。快速分析的建议重叠的55%，从专题分析，和专题分析重叠的快速分析recommendations.Conclusions快速分析提供了一个适度的时间节省。在本研究中，由于研究团队之间的差异，在快速分析中解释数据的时间过长。各种方法之间的产出有重叠，结论多于建议。快速分析有可能提供有效、及时的结果，同时花费更少的时间。我们建议使用更多类似研究团队的额外数据集进行进一步比较。
Objectives This study compares rapid and traditional analyses of a UK health service evaluation dataset to explore differences in researcher time and consistency of outputs.Design Mixed methods study, quantitatively and qualitatively comparing qualitative methods.Setting Data from a home birth service evaluation study in a hospital in the English National Health Service, which took place between October and December 2014. Two research teams independently analysed focus group and interview transcript data: one team used a thematic analysis approach using the framework method, and the second used rapid analysis.Participants Home birth midwives (6), midwifery support workers (4), commissioners (4), managers (6), and community midwives (12) and a patient representative (1) participated in the original study.Primary outcome measures Time taken to complete analysis in person hours; analysis findings and recommendations matched, partially matched or not matched across the two teams.Results Rapid analysis data management took less time than thematic analysis (43 hours vs 116.5 hours). Rapid analysis took 100 hours, and thematic analysis took 126.5 hours in total, with interpretation and write up taking much longer in the rapid analysis (52 hours vs 8 hours). Rapid analysis findings overlapped with 79% of thematic analysis findings, and thematic analysis overlapped with 63% of the rapid analysis findings. Rapid analysis recommendations overlapped with 55% of those from the thematic analysis, and thematic analysis overlapped with 59% of the rapid analysis recommendations.Conclusions Rapid analysis delivered a modest time saving. Excessive time to interpret data in rapid analysis in this study may be due to differences between research teams. There was overlap in outputs between approaches, more in findings than recommendations. Rapid analysis may have the potential to deliver valid, timely findings while taking less time. We recommend further comparisons using additional data sets with more similar research teams.