Search

Background: The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods: A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results: The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions: Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2013–2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa highlighted both the successes and limitations of social science contributions to emergency response operations. An important limitation was the rapid and effective communication of study findings. A systematic review was carried out to explore how rapid qualitative methods have been used during global heath emergencies to understand which methods are commonly used, how they are applied, and the difficulties faced by social science researchers in the field. We also asses their value and benefit for health emergencies. The review findings are used to propose recommendations for qualitative research in this context. Peer-reviewed articles and grey literature were identified through six online databases. An initial search was carried out in July 2016 and updated in February 2017. The PRISMA checklist was used to guide the reporting of methods and findings. The articles were assessed for quality using the MMAT and AACODS checklist. From an initial search yielding 1444 articles, 22 articles met the criteria for inclusion. Thirteen of the articles were qualitative studies and nine used a mixed-methods design. The purpose of the rapid studies included: the identification of causes of the outbreak, and assessment of infrastructure, control strategies, health needs and health facility use. The studies varied in duration (from 4 days to 1 month). The main limitations identified by the authors were: the low quality of the collected data, small sample sizes, and little time for cross-checking facts with other data sources to reduce bias. Rapid qualitative methods were seen as beneficial in highlighting context-specific issues that need to be addressed locally, population-level behaviors influencing health service use, and organizational challenges in response planning and implementation. Recommendations for carrying out rapid qualitative research in this context included the early designation of community leaders as a point of contact, early and continuous sharing of findings, and development of recommendations with local policy makers and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]