Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting
Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and out...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Kowalski, Christine P. [verfasserIn] Nevedal, Andrea L. [verfasserIn] Finley, Erin P. [verfasserIn] Young, Jessica P. [verfasserIn] Lewinski, Allison A. [verfasserIn] Midboe, Amanda M. [verfasserIn] Hamilton, Alison B. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Implementation science - BioMed Central, 2006, 19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt. |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:19 ; year:2024 ; number:1 ; day:11 ; month:10 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR057758050 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR057758050 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20241012064641.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 241012s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR057758050 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s13012-024-01397-1-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Kowalski, Christine P. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024 | ||
| 520 | |a Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Rapid qualitative analysis |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Rapid qualitative methods |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Rigor |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Validity |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Rapid qualitative studies |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Qualitative methods |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nevedal, Andrea L. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Finley, Erin P. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Young, Jessica P. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lewinski, Allison A. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Midboe, Amanda M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hamilton, Alison B. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Implementation science |d BioMed Central, 2006 |g 19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt. |w (DE-627)509006191 |w (DE-600)2225822-X |x 1748-5908 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:19 |g year:2024 |g number:1 |g day:11 |g month:10 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 |m X:SPRINGER |x Resolving-System |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_0 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_72 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 19 |j 2024 |e 1 |b 11 |c 10 | ||
| author_variant |
c p k cp cpk a l n al aln e p f ep epf j p y jp jpy a a l aa aal a m m am amm a b h ab abh |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:17485908:2024----::lnigoadsesnrgrnaiqaiaienlssaracnessaefaeoko |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2024 |
| publishDate |
2024 |
| allfields |
10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 doi (DE-627)SPR057758050 (SPR)s13012-024-01397-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ Kowalski, Christine P. verfasserin aut Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024 Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science. Rapid qualitative analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rigor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Validity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative studies (dpeaa)DE-He213 Qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Nevedal, Andrea L. verfasserin aut Finley, Erin P. verfasserin aut Young, Jessica P. verfasserin aut Lewinski, Allison A. verfasserin aut Midboe, Amanda M. verfasserin aut Hamilton, Alison B. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Implementation science BioMed Central, 2006 19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt. (DE-627)509006191 (DE-600)2225822-X 1748-5908 nnns volume:19 year:2024 number:1 day:11 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 X:SPRINGER Resolving-System kostenfrei Volltext SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2024 1 11 10 |
| spelling |
10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 doi (DE-627)SPR057758050 (SPR)s13012-024-01397-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ Kowalski, Christine P. verfasserin aut Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024 Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science. Rapid qualitative analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rigor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Validity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative studies (dpeaa)DE-He213 Qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Nevedal, Andrea L. verfasserin aut Finley, Erin P. verfasserin aut Young, Jessica P. verfasserin aut Lewinski, Allison A. verfasserin aut Midboe, Amanda M. verfasserin aut Hamilton, Alison B. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Implementation science BioMed Central, 2006 19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt. (DE-627)509006191 (DE-600)2225822-X 1748-5908 nnns volume:19 year:2024 number:1 day:11 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 X:SPRINGER Resolving-System kostenfrei Volltext SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2024 1 11 10 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 doi (DE-627)SPR057758050 (SPR)s13012-024-01397-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ Kowalski, Christine P. verfasserin aut Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024 Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science. Rapid qualitative analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rigor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Validity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative studies (dpeaa)DE-He213 Qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Nevedal, Andrea L. verfasserin aut Finley, Erin P. verfasserin aut Young, Jessica P. verfasserin aut Lewinski, Allison A. verfasserin aut Midboe, Amanda M. verfasserin aut Hamilton, Alison B. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Implementation science BioMed Central, 2006 19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt. (DE-627)509006191 (DE-600)2225822-X 1748-5908 nnns volume:19 year:2024 number:1 day:11 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 X:SPRINGER Resolving-System kostenfrei Volltext SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2024 1 11 10 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 doi (DE-627)SPR057758050 (SPR)s13012-024-01397-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ Kowalski, Christine P. verfasserin aut Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024 Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science. Rapid qualitative analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rigor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Validity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative studies (dpeaa)DE-He213 Qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Nevedal, Andrea L. verfasserin aut Finley, Erin P. verfasserin aut Young, Jessica P. verfasserin aut Lewinski, Allison A. verfasserin aut Midboe, Amanda M. verfasserin aut Hamilton, Alison B. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Implementation science BioMed Central, 2006 19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt. (DE-627)509006191 (DE-600)2225822-X 1748-5908 nnns volume:19 year:2024 number:1 day:11 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 X:SPRINGER Resolving-System kostenfrei Volltext SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2024 1 11 10 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 doi (DE-627)SPR057758050 (SPR)s13012-024-01397-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ Kowalski, Christine P. verfasserin aut Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024 Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science. Rapid qualitative analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rigor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Validity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative studies (dpeaa)DE-He213 Qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Nevedal, Andrea L. verfasserin aut Finley, Erin P. verfasserin aut Young, Jessica P. verfasserin aut Lewinski, Allison A. verfasserin aut Midboe, Amanda M. verfasserin aut Hamilton, Alison B. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Implementation science BioMed Central, 2006 19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt. (DE-627)509006191 (DE-600)2225822-X 1748-5908 nnns volume:19 year:2024 number:1 day:11 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 X:SPRINGER Resolving-System kostenfrei Volltext SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2024 1 11 10 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Implementation science 19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt. volume:19 year:2024 number:1 day:11 month:10 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Implementation science 19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt. volume:19 year:2024 number:1 day:11 month:10 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Rapid qualitative analysis Rapid qualitative methods Rigor Validity Rapid qualitative studies Qualitative methods |
| dewey-raw |
610 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Implementation science |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Kowalski, Christine P. @@aut@@ Nevedal, Andrea L. @@aut@@ Finley, Erin P. @@aut@@ Young, Jessica P. @@aut@@ Lewinski, Allison A. @@aut@@ Midboe, Amanda M. @@aut@@ Hamilton, Alison B. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2024-10-11T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
509006191 |
| dewey-sort |
3610 |
| id |
SPR057758050 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR057758050</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20241012064641.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">241012s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR057758050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s13012-024-01397-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kowalski, Christine P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rapid qualitative analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rapid qualitative methods</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rigor</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Validity</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rapid qualitative studies</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Qualitative methods</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nevedal, Andrea L.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Finley, Erin P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Young, Jessica P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lewinski, Allison A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Midboe, Amanda M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hamilton, Alison B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Implementation science</subfield><subfield code="d">BioMed Central, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)509006191</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2225822-X</subfield><subfield code="x">1748-5908</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2024</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:11</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1</subfield><subfield code="m">X:SPRINGER</subfield><subfield code="x">Resolving-System</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_72</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2024</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">11</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Kowalski, Christine P. |
| spellingShingle |
Kowalski, Christine P. ddc 610 misc Rapid qualitative analysis misc Rapid qualitative methods misc Rigor misc Validity misc Rapid qualitative studies misc Qualitative methods Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting |
| authorStr |
Kowalski, Christine P. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)509006191 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1748-5908 |
| topic_title |
610 VZ Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting Rapid qualitative analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rigor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Validity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rapid qualitative studies (dpeaa)DE-He213 Qualitative methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
ddc 610 misc Rapid qualitative analysis misc Rapid qualitative methods misc Rigor misc Validity misc Rapid qualitative studies misc Qualitative methods |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 misc Rapid qualitative analysis misc Rapid qualitative methods misc Rigor misc Validity misc Rapid qualitative studies misc Qualitative methods |
| topic_browse |
ddc 610 misc Rapid qualitative analysis misc Rapid qualitative methods misc Rigor misc Validity misc Rapid qualitative studies misc Qualitative methods |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Implementation science |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
509006191 |
| dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Implementation science |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)509006191 (DE-600)2225822-X |
| title |
Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR057758050 (SPR)s13012-024-01397-1-e |
| title_full |
Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting |
| author_sort |
Kowalski, Christine P. |
| journal |
Implementation science |
| journalStr |
Implementation science |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2024 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Kowalski, Christine P. Nevedal, Andrea L. Finley, Erin P. Young, Jessica P. Lewinski, Allison A. Midboe, Amanda M. Hamilton, Alison B. |
| container_volume |
19 |
| class |
610 VZ |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Kowalski, Christine P. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 |
| dewey-full |
610 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
planning for and assessing rigor in rapid qualitative analysis (parrqa): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting |
| title_auth |
Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting |
| abstract |
Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science. © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024 |
| abstractGer |
Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science. © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science. © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024 |
| collection_details |
SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Nevedal, Andrea L. Finley, Erin P. Young, Jessica P. Lewinski, Allison A. Midboe, Amanda M. Hamilton, Alison B. |
| author2Str |
Nevedal, Andrea L. Finley, Erin P. Young, Jessica P. Lewinski, Allison A. Midboe, Amanda M. Hamilton, Alison B. |
| ppnlink |
509006191 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1 |
| up_date |
2024-10-12T04:48:01.136Z |
| _version_ |
1812682224319856640 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR057758050</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20241012064641.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">241012s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR057758050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s13012-024-01397-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kowalski, Christine P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rapid qualitative analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rapid qualitative methods</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rigor</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Validity</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rapid qualitative studies</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Qualitative methods</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nevedal, Andrea L.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Finley, Erin P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Young, Jessica P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lewinski, Allison A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Midboe, Amanda M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hamilton, Alison B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Implementation science</subfield><subfield code="d">BioMed Central, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2024), 1 vom: 11. Okt.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)509006191</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2225822-X</subfield><subfield code="x">1748-5908</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2024</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:11</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1</subfield><subfield code="m">X:SPRINGER</subfield><subfield code="x">Resolving-System</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_72</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2024</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">11</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399123 |