Rapid Versus Traditional Qualitative Analysis Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

Abstract

<title>Abstract</title> BackgroundQualitative 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. MethodsSemi-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. ResultsCohort 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. ConclusionOur rapid approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor.