This preprint is under consideration at Implementation Science. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Methodology
Rapid Versus Traditional Qualitative Analysis Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
Andrea Nevedal
VA Palo Alto Healthcare System
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3859-8493
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
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.
Keywords
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), Qualitative methods, Rapid analysis, Implementation Science, Veterans
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- AdditionalFile1InterviewGuide2020.12.23.docx
Additional File 1. Interview Guide
- AdditionalFile2CFIRFacilityMemo2020.12.23.docx
Additional File 2. Unabridged MS Word CFIR Facility Memo Template
- AdditionalFile3CFIRMatrix2020.12.23.xlsx
Additional File 2. Unabridged MS Excel CFIR Construct by Facility Matrix Template
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 30 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 27 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Dec, 2020
First submitted
On 25 Dec, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at Implementation Science. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Methodology
Rapid Versus Traditional Qualitative Analysis Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
Andrea Nevedal
VA Palo Alto Healthcare System
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3859-8493
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 30 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 27 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Dec, 2020
First submitted
On 25 Dec, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
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