Getting added value from using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research is undertaken with randomized controlled trials of health interventions. Our aim was to explore the perceptions of researchers with experience of this endeavour to understand the added value of qualitative research to the trial in practice. METHODS: A telephone semi-structured interview study with 18 researchers with experience of undertaking the trial and/or the qualitative research. RESULTS: Interviewees described the added value of qualitative research for the trial, explaining how it solved problems at the pretrial stage, explained findings, and helped to increase the utility of the evidence generated by the trial. From the interviews, we identified three models of relationship of the qualitative research to the trial. In 'the peripheral' model, the trial was an opportunity to undertake qualitative research, with no intention that it would add value to the trial. In 'the add-on' model, the qualitative researcher understood the potential value of the qualitative research but it was viewed as a separate and complementary endeavour by the trial lead investigator and wider team. Interviewees described how this could limit the value of the qualitative research to the trial. Finally 'the integral' model played out in two ways. In 'integral-in-theory' studies, the lead investigator viewed the qualitative research as essential to the trial. However, in practice the qualitative research was under-resourced relative to the trial, potentially limiting its ability to add value to the trial. In 'integral-in-practice' studies, interviewees described how the qualitative research was planned from the beginning of the study, senior qualitative expertise was on the team from beginning to end, and staff and time were dedicated to the qualitative research. In these studies interviewees described the qualitative research adding value to the trial although this value was not necessarily visible beyond the original research team due to the challenges of publishing this research. CONCLUSIONS: Health researchers combining qualitative research and trials viewed this practice as strengthening evaluative research. Teams viewing the qualitative research as essential to the trial, and resourcing it in practice, may have a better chance of delivering its added value to the trial.

Maximising the value of combining qualitative research and randomised controlled trials in health research: the QUAlitative Research in Trials (QUART) study--a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Researchers sometimes undertake qualitative research with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of health interventions. OBJECTIVES: To systematically explore how qualitative research is being used with trials and identify ways of maximising its value to the trial aim of providing evidence of effectiveness of health interventions. DESIGN: A sequential mixed methods study with four components. METHODS: (1) Database search of peer-reviewed journals between January 2008 and September 2010 for articles reporting the qualitative research undertaken with specific trials, (2) systematic search of database of registered trials to identify studies combining qualitative research and trials, (3) survey of 200 lead investigators of trials with no apparent qualitative research and (4) semistructured telephone interviews with 18 researchers purposively sampled from the first three methods. RESULTS: Qualitative research was undertaken with at least 12% of trials. A large number of articles reporting qualitative research undertaken with trials (n=296) were published between 2008 and 2010. A total of 28% (82/296) of articles reported qualitative research undertaken at the pre-trial stage and around one-quarter concerned drugs or devices. The articles focused on 22 aspects of the trial within five broad categories. Some focused on more than one aspect of the trial, totalling 356 examples. The qualitative research focused on the intervention being trialled (71%, 254/356), the design and conduct of the trial (15%, 54/356), the outcomes of the trial (1%, 5/356), the measures used in the trial (3%, 10/356), and the health condition in the trial (9%, 33/356). The potential value of the qualitative research to the trial endeavour included improving the external validity of trials and facilitating interpretation of trial findings. This value could be maximised by using qualitative research more at the pre-trial stage and reporting findings with explicit attention to the implications for the trial endeavour. During interviews, three models of study were identified: qualitative research as peripheral to the trial, qualitative research as an 'add-on' to the trial and a study with qualitative research and trial as essential components, with the third model offering more opportunity to maximise the value of the qualitative research. Interviewees valued the use of qualitative research with trials and identified team structures and wider structural issues which gave more value to the trial than the qualitative research as barriers to maximising the value of the qualitative research. CONCLUSION: A large number of articles were published between 2008 and 2010, addressing a wide range of aspects of trials. There were examples of this research affecting the trial by facilitating interpretation of trial findings, developing and refining interventions for testing in the trial and changing the measures used in the trial. However, researchers were not necessarily maximising the value of qualitative research undertaken with trials to the endeavour of generating evidence of effectiveness of health interventions. Researchers can maximise value by promoting its use at the pre-trial stage to ensure that the intervention and trial conduct is optimised at the main trial stage, being explicit about the conclusions for the trial endeavour in peer-reviewed journal articles reporting the qualitative research and valuing the contribution of the qualitative research as much as the trial. Future recommendations for researchers include: plan the qualitative research, design and implement studies not trials, use qualitative research at the feasibility and pilot stage of trials, be explicit in publications about the impact of the qualitative research on the trial and implications for the trial endeavour, undertake in-depth qualitative research, allow qualitative research to take a challenging role and develop a learning environment around the use of qualitative research and trials. FUNDING: This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) as part of the MRC-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Describing qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials in grant proposals: a documentary analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of the value of conducting qualitative research with trials in health research. It is timely to reflect on how this qualitative research is presented in grant proposals to identify lessons for researchers and research commissioners. As part of a larger study focusing on how to maximise the value of undertaking qualitative research with trials, we undertook a documentary analysis of proposals of funded studies. METHODS: Using the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) database we identified trials funded in the United Kingdom, ongoing between 2001 and 2010, and reporting the use of qualitative research. We requested copies of proposals from lead researchers. We extracted data from the proposals using closed and open questions, analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis respectively. RESULTS: 2% (89/3812) of trials in the mRCT database described the use of qualitative research undertaken with the trial. From these 89 trials, we received copies of 36 full proposals, of which 32 met our inclusion criteria. 25% used less than a single paragraph to describe the qualitative research. The aims of the qualitative research described in these proposals focused mainly on the intervention or trial conduct. Just over half (56%) of the proposals included an explicit rationale for conducting the qualitative research with the trial, the most frequent being to optimise implementation into clinical practice or to interpret trial findings. Key information about methods, expertise and resources was missing in a large minority of proposals, in particular sample size, type of analysis, and non-personnel resources. 28% specifically stated that qualitative researchers would conduct the qualitative research. CONCLUSIONS: Our review of proposals of successfully funded studies identified good practice but also identified limited space given to describing the qualitative research, with an associated lack of attention to the rationale for doing the qualitative research and important methodological details. Acknowledging the space restrictions faced by researchers writing grant proposals, we suggest a starting point for providing practical guidance to help researchers write proposals and research commissioners assess proposals of qualitative research with trials.