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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 The rapid review covered published RQMs used in articles and unpublished reports produced between 2015 and 2021 in five languages (English, Mandarin, French, Portuguese, and Spanish).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 We included 126 published and unpublished sources, which were reviewed, coded, and classified by the research team.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 |