Rapid Versus Traditional Qualitative Analysis Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
Background
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 approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that relies on notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid approach to a traditional qualitative approach.
Methods
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 a traditional analysis approach, where two analysts completed line-by-line independent coding of interview transcripts. In Cohort B, we used a rapid analysis approach, where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately “coded” them into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited notes. We tracked time for the traditional and rapid approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor.
Results
Cohort A and B were relatively equivalent in terms of data collected. However, the rapid approach required significantly fewer analyst hours and eliminated $7,250 in transcription costs. Despite these differences, both approaches were effective in meeting our evaluation objectives and establishing rigor.
Conclusion
Our rapid approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor.
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Additional File 1. Interview Guide
Additional File 2. Unabridged MS Word CFIR Facility Memo Template
Additional File 2. Unabridged MS Excel CFIR Construct by Facility Matrix Template
Posted 30 Dec, 2020
On 10 Jan, 2021
On 06 Jan, 2021
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2021
On 27 Dec, 2020
On 27 Dec, 2020
On 27 Dec, 2020
On 25 Dec, 2020
Rapid Versus Traditional Qualitative Analysis Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
Posted 30 Dec, 2020
On 10 Jan, 2021
On 06 Jan, 2021
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2021
On 27 Dec, 2020
On 27 Dec, 2020
On 27 Dec, 2020
On 25 Dec, 2020
Background
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 approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that relies on notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid approach to a traditional qualitative approach.
Methods
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 a traditional analysis approach, where two analysts completed line-by-line independent coding of interview transcripts. In Cohort B, we used a rapid analysis approach, where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately “coded” them into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited notes. We tracked time for the traditional and rapid approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor.
Results
Cohort A and B were relatively equivalent in terms of data collected. However, the rapid approach required significantly fewer analyst hours and eliminated $7,250 in transcription costs. Despite these differences, both approaches were effective in meeting our evaluation objectives and establishing rigor.
Conclusion
Our rapid approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor.
Figure 1