Examining What We Know in Relation to How We Know It: A Team-Based Reflexivity Model for Rapid Qualitative Health Research.

Reflexivity constitutes a core component of qualitative research and has been actively integrated into long-term and "lone ranger" approaches to qualitative research. However, its application to team-based approaches and particularly to rapid qualitative team-based approaches continues to lag behind. In this article, we introduce a reflexivity model we developed for teams undertaking rapid qualitative studies. Utilizing our most recent application of this model to a rapid qualitative appraisal of health care workers' experiences delivering care during the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, we identify the steps to put this model into practice and its main outcomes. Our application of the model revealed that the team's practices could be grouped along four dimensions: design assumptions, data collection and analysis processes, multidisciplinary collaboration, and responsible dissemination. Reflexivity can improve the relations within the team and the quality of the research output, if it is implemented as a continuous and iterative process.

Carrying Out Rapid Qualitative Research During a Pandemic: Emerging Lessons From COVID-19.

Social scientists have a robust history of contributing to better understandings of and responses to disease outbreaks. The implementation of qualitative research in the context of infectious epidemics, however, continues to lag behind in the delivery, credibility, and timeliness of findings when compared with other research designs. The purpose of this article is to reflect on our experience of carrying out three research studies (a rapid appraisal, a qualitative study based on interviews, and a mixed-methods survey) aimed at exploring health care delivery in the context of COVID-19. We highlight the importance of qualitative data to inform evidence-based public health responses and provide a way forward to global research teams who wish to implement similar rapid qualitative studies. We reflect on the challenges of setting up research teams, obtaining ethical approval, collecting and analyzing data in real-time and sharing actionable findings.

Rapid Techniques in Qualitative Research: A Critical Review of the Literature.

Qualitative researchers are under increasing time demands to rapidly collect, analyze, and disseminate the results of their findings. Adaptations to qualitative methods may be required to enable the use of timely and relevant qualitative data across multiple disciplinary settings. The aim of this review is to briefly explore the ways in which data collection and analysis methods have been adapted in qualitative research to deal with short study timeframes. We carried out a two-phased systematic review of the literature and determined there were six primary reasons why rapid techniques were used: (a) reduce time, (b) reduce cost, (c) increase the amount of collected data, (d) improve efficiency, (e) improve accuracy, and (f) obtain a closer approximation to the narrated realities of research participants. In addition, we analyzed the characteristics of the articles, how traditional methods were adapted and evaluated, the benefits and limitations of using rapid techniques, and future recommendations.

Rapid qualitative research methods during complex health emergencies: A systematic review of the literature.

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.

The narrated, nonnarrated, and the disnarrated: conceptual tools for analyzing narratives in health services research.

While analyzing the narratives of children receiving pediatric oncology treatment and their parents, we encountered three ways to look at their narratives: what was narrated, nonnarrated, and disnarrated. The narrated refers to the actors (characters) and events (scenes) individuals decided to include in the narration of their experiences, the nonnarrated are everything not included in narration, and the disnarrated are elements that are narrated in the story but did not actually take place. We use our reflection to illustrate how an integrative analysis of these different forms of narration can allow us to produce a holistic interpretation of people's experiences of illness. This approach is still in the early stages of development, but we hope this article can promote a debate in the field and lead to the refinement of an important tool for narrative analysis.