Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

Abstract

Background Qualitative 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 analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach. Methods Semi-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 our traditional CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where two analysts completed independent in-depth manual coding of interview transcripts using qualitative software. In cohort B, we used our new rapid CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately “coded” notes into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited the matrix. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor. Results Cohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. The facility-level analysis phase provided the greatest savings: 14 h/facility for the traditional analysis versus 3.92 h/facility for the rapid analysis. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches. Conclusion Our rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. Researchers should consider the following when employing our approach: (1) team expertise in the CFIR and qualitative methods, (2) level of detail needed to meet project aims, (3) mode of data to analyze, and (4) advantages and disadvantages of using the CFIR.

Opportunities to improve the impact of two national clinical audit programmes: a theory-guided analysis

“…Nevertheless, rapid approaches to qualitative analysis are gaining recognition as an acceptable methodology within limited timeframes and have been successfully applied to other contexts [ 10 ]. Comparative studies have demonstrated that rapid analysis techniques can generate similar findings to in-depth approaches [ 8 , 9 , 11 ]. In particular, they can allow researchers to work productively with partners, such as audit programmes, that often seek timely and actionable recommendations.…”

“…We used a rapid approach to analysis and interpretation. Rapid techniques within qualitative analysis are considered appropriate to provide valid findings and recommendations within a short timeframe [ 8 – 11 ]. Our report follows the COREQ recommendations for qualitative studies [ 12 ] (Additional file 1 ).…”

Development of a multicomponent implementation strategy to reduce upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk in patients using warfarin and antiplatelet therapy, and protocol for a pragmatic multilevel randomized factorial pilot implementation trial

“…Data collected during patient interview 2 as well as the clinician and nurse interviews will be analyzed using a rapid deductive analysis approach guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) [ 53 , 56 , 57 ]. We will develop a structured summary template for recording information focusing on acceptability, as defined by the TFA component constructs (affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy), barriers to use, and opportunities for enhancement.…”

Adapting Evidence-Based Early Psychosis Intervention Services for Virtual Delivery: Protocol for a Pragmatic Mixed Methods Implementation and Evaluation Study

“…The CFIR provides the organizing framework for qualitative deductive coding and analysis of the clinician interviews. CFIR interviews will be administered and coded using a variation of the Rapid Analysis (RA) method, an alternative to in-depth analysis of interview data to allow for faster analysis and dissemination of implementation findings while using fewer resources [ 58 , 59 ]. In combination with the fidelity results, we will seek patterns of implementation facilitators and barriers, coded deductively to the CFIR domains and factors, as well as direction and strength of the association (valence) between factors and implementation success.…”