In dyadic interviews, two participants interact in response to open-ended research questions. There are few precedents for using dyadic interviews as a technique for qualitative research. We introduce this method largely in comparison to focus groups, because both represent forms of interactive interviewing. We do not, however, view dyadic interviews as miniature focus groups, and treat them as generating their own opportunities and issues. To illustrate the nature of dyadic interviewing, we present summaries of three studies using this method. In the first study, we used dyadic interviews and photovoice techniques to examine experiences of people with early-stage dementia. In the second study, we explored the experiences of staff who provided services to elderly housing residents. In the third study, we examined barriers and facilitators to substance abuse treatment among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Hawaii. We conclude with a discussion of directions for future research using dyadic interviews.
The likelihood of rupture of unruptured intracranial aneurysms that were less than 10 mm in diameter was exceedingly low among patients in group 1 and was substantially higher among those in group 2. The risk of morbidity and mortality related to surgery greatly exceeded the 7.5-year risk of rupture among patients in group 1 with unruptured intracranial aneurysms smaller than 10 mm in diameter.
Aims Improvement collaboratives consisting of various components are used throughout healthcare to improve quality, but no study has identified which components work best. This study tested the effectiveness of different components in addiction treatment services, hypothesizing that a combination of all components would be most effective. Design An unblinded cluster-randomized trial assigned clinics to one of four groups: interest circle calls (group teleconferences), clinic-level coaching, learning sessions (large face-to-face meetings), and a combination of all three. Interest circle calls functioned as a minimal intervention comparison group. Setting Outpatient addiction treatment clinics in the U.S. Participants 201 clinics in 5 states. Measurements Clinic data managers submitted data on three primary outcomes: waiting time (mean days between first contact and first treatment), retention (percent of patients retained from first to fourth treatment session), and annual number of new patients. State and group costs were collected for a cost-effectiveness analysis. Findings Waiting time declined significantly for 3 groups: coaching (an average of −4.6 days/clinic, P=0.001), learning sessions (−3.5 days/clinic, P=0.012), and the combination (−4.7 days/clinic, P=0.001). The coaching and combination groups significantly increased the number of new patients (19.5%, P=0.028; 8.9%, P=0.029; respectively). Interest circle calls showed no significant effects on outcomes. None of the groups significantly improved retention. The estimated cost/clinic was $2,878 for coaching versus $7,930 for the combination. Coaching and the combination of collaborative components were about equally effective in achieving study aims, but coaching was substantially more cost effective. Conclusions When trying to improve the effectiveness of addiction treatment services, clinic-level coaching appears to help improve waiting time and number of new patients while other components of improvement collaboratives (interest circles calls and learning sessions) do not seem to add further value.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.