Cargando…

A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Methods Sub-Group of the WHO COVID-19 Social Science Research Roadmap Working Group conducted a rapid evidence review of rapid qualitative methods (RQMs) used during epidemics. The rapid review objectives were to (1) synthesize the development, imp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dong, Dong, Abramowitz, Sharon, Matta, Gustavo Corrêa, Moreno, Arlinda B., Nouvet, Elysée, Stolow, Jeni, Pilbeam, Caitlin, Lees, Shelley, Yeoh, EK, Gobat, Nina, Giles-Vernick, Tamara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10610454/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37889886
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002320
_version_ 1785128259030089728
author Dong, Dong
Abramowitz, Sharon
Matta, Gustavo Corrêa
Moreno, Arlinda B.
Nouvet, Elysée
Stolow, Jeni
Pilbeam, Caitlin
Lees, Shelley
Yeoh, EK
Gobat, Nina
Giles-Vernick, Tamara
author_facet Dong, Dong
Abramowitz, Sharon
Matta, Gustavo Corrêa
Moreno, Arlinda B.
Nouvet, Elysée
Stolow, Jeni
Pilbeam, Caitlin
Lees, Shelley
Yeoh, EK
Gobat, Nina
Giles-Vernick, Tamara
author_sort Dong, Dong
collection PubMed
description During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Methods Sub-Group of the WHO COVID-19 Social Science Research Roadmap Working Group conducted a rapid evidence review of rapid qualitative methods (RQMs) used during epidemics. The rapid review objectives were to (1) synthesize the development, implementation, and uses of RQMs, including the data collection tools, research questions, research capacities, analytical approaches, and strategies used to speed up data collection and analysis in their specific epidemic and institutional contexts; and (2) propose a tool for assessing and reporting RQMs in epidemics emergencies. The rapid review covered published RQMs used in articles and unpublished reports produced between 2015 and 2021 in five languages (English, Mandarin, French, Portuguese, and Spanish). We searched multiple databases in these five languages between December 2020 and January 31, 2021. Sources employing “rapid” (under 6 months from conception to reporting of results) qualitative methods for research related to epidemic emergencies were included. We included 126 published and unpublished sources, which were reviewed, coded, and classified by the research team. Intercoder reliability was found to be acceptable (Krippendorff’s α = 0.709). We employed thematic analysis to identify categories characterizing RQMs in epidemic emergencies. The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (no. CRD42020223283) and Research Registry (no. reviewregistry1044). We developed an assessment and reporting tool of 13 criteria in three domains, to document RQMs used in response to epidemic emergencies. These include I. Design and Development (i. time frame, ii. Training, iii. Applicability to other populations, iv. Applicability to low resource settings, v. community engagement, vi. Available resources, vii. Ethical approvals, viii. Vulnerability, ix. Tool selection); II. Data Collection and Analysis (x. concurrent data collection and analysis, xi. Targeted populations and recruitment procedures); III. Restitution and Dissemination (xii. Restitution and dissemination of findings, xiii. Impact). Our rapid review and evaluation found a wide range of feasible and highly effective tools, analytical approaches and timely operational insights and recommendations during epidemic emergencies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10610454
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106104542023-10-28 A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation Dong, Dong Abramowitz, Sharon Matta, Gustavo Corrêa Moreno, Arlinda B. Nouvet, Elysée Stolow, Jeni Pilbeam, Caitlin Lees, Shelley Yeoh, EK Gobat, Nina Giles-Vernick, Tamara PLOS Glob Public Health Research Article During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Methods Sub-Group of the WHO COVID-19 Social Science Research Roadmap Working Group conducted a rapid evidence review of rapid qualitative methods (RQMs) used during epidemics. The rapid review objectives were to (1) synthesize the development, implementation, and uses of RQMs, including the data collection tools, research questions, research capacities, analytical approaches, and strategies used to speed up data collection and analysis in their specific epidemic and institutional contexts; and (2) propose a tool for assessing and reporting RQMs in epidemics emergencies. The rapid review covered published RQMs used in articles and unpublished reports produced between 2015 and 2021 in five languages (English, Mandarin, French, Portuguese, and Spanish). We searched multiple databases in these five languages between December 2020 and January 31, 2021. Sources employing “rapid” (under 6 months from conception to reporting of results) qualitative methods for research related to epidemic emergencies were included. We included 126 published and unpublished sources, which were reviewed, coded, and classified by the research team. Intercoder reliability was found to be acceptable (Krippendorff’s α = 0.709). We employed thematic analysis to identify categories characterizing RQMs in epidemic emergencies. The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (no. CRD42020223283) and Research Registry (no. reviewregistry1044). We developed an assessment and reporting tool of 13 criteria in three domains, to document RQMs used in response to epidemic emergencies. These include I. Design and Development (i. time frame, ii. Training, iii. Applicability to other populations, iv. Applicability to low resource settings, v. community engagement, vi. Available resources, vii. Ethical approvals, viii. Vulnerability, ix. Tool selection); II. Data Collection and Analysis (x. concurrent data collection and analysis, xi. Targeted populations and recruitment procedures); III. Restitution and Dissemination (xii. Restitution and dissemination of findings, xiii. Impact). Our rapid review and evaluation found a wide range of feasible and highly effective tools, analytical approaches and timely operational insights and recommendations during epidemic emergencies. Public Library of Science 2023-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10610454/ /pubmed/37889886 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002320 Text en © 2023 Dong et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Dong, Dong
Abramowitz, Sharon
Matta, Gustavo Corrêa
Moreno, Arlinda B.
Nouvet, Elysée
Stolow, Jeni
Pilbeam, Caitlin
Lees, Shelley
Yeoh, EK
Gobat, Nina
Giles-Vernick, Tamara
A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation
title A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation
title_full A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation
title_fullStr A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation
title_full_unstemmed A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation
title_short A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation
title_sort rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10610454/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37889886
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002320
work_keys_str_mv AT dongdong arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT abramowitzsharon arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT mattagustavocorrea arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT morenoarlindab arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT nouvetelysee arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT stolowjeni arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT pilbeamcaitlin arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT leesshelley arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT yeohek arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT gobatnina arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT gilesvernicktamara arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT dongdong rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT abramowitzsharon rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT mattagustavocorrea rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT morenoarlindab rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT nouvetelysee rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT stolowjeni rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT pilbeamcaitlin rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT leesshelley rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT yeohek rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT gobatnina rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation
AT gilesvernicktamara rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation