Contested ground: how should qualitative evidence inform the conduct of a community intervention trial?

Abstract

This paper presents issues which arose in the conduct of qualitative evaluation research within a cluster-randomized, community-level, preventive intervention trial. The research involved the collection of narratives of practice regarding the intervention by community development officers working in eight communities over a two-year period. The community development officers were largely responsible for implementing the intervention. We discuss the challenges associated with the collection of data as the intervention unfolded, in particular, the disputes over cues to revise and adjust the intervention (i.e. to use the early data formatively). We explore the ethical uncertainties that arise when multiple parties have different views on the legitimacy of types of knowledge and the appropriate role of research and theory in various trial stages. These issues are discussed drawing on the fields of ethnography, community psychology, epidemiology, qualitative methodology and notions of research reflexivity. We conclude by arguing that, in addition to the usual practice of having an outcome data-monitoring committee, community intervention trials also require a process data-monitoring committee as a forum for debate and decision-making. Without such a forum, the relevance, ethics and position of qualitative evaluation research within randomized controlled trials are destined to be a point of contention rather than a source of insight.

Lessons from Complex Interventions to Improve Health

“…Key components traditionally take the same form in every site, which some practitioners resist (66,113). To overcome this, others suggest that standardization should be conducted in a different way (67).…”

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

“…There are examples in the wider literature of qualitative research challenging the underlying theory of the intervention, 1 challenging whether or not the trial should continue 159 and being used to provide evidence for discontinuing a trial. 160 …”

Minimal, negligible and negligent interventions

“…Full credit to the authors for their transparency, because some insights into the logic of their choice of intervention strategy are available to date along with the results of prior community consultations (Chandler et al, 2013a(Chandler et al, , 2013bStaedke et al, 2013) This possibly places the reader in the position to judge their decisions. And perhaps some of us would be more inclined to do so, were we not so cognisant of having been in similar vexed situations ourselves (Riley et al, 2005).…”