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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | PLOS Global Public Health |
| Online Access: | https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0002320&type=printable |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850162763269144576 |
|---|---|
| author | Dong Dong Sharon Abramowitz Gustavo Corrêa Matta Arlinda B Moreno Elysée Nouvet Jeni Stolow Caitlin Pilbeam Shelley Lees E K Yeoh Nina Gobat Tamara Giles-Vernick |
| author_facet | Dong Dong Sharon Abramowitz Gustavo Corrêa Matta Arlinda B Moreno Elysée Nouvet Jeni Stolow Caitlin Pilbeam Shelley Lees E K Yeoh Nina Gobat Tamara Giles-Vernick |
| author_sort | Dong Dong |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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 The rapid review covered published RQMs used in articles and unpublished reports produced between 2015 and 2021 in five languages (English, Mandarin, French, Portuguese, and Spanish).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 We included 126 published and unpublished sources, which were reviewed, coded, and classified by the research team.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 | Article |
| id | doaj-art-3638e33d1ef749bbb9d5e461ff43bcad |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2767-3375 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLOS Global Public Health |
| spelling | doaj-art-3638e33d1ef749bbb9d5e461ff43bcad2025-08-20T02:22:28ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLOS Global Public Health2767-33752023-01-01310e000232010.1371/journal.pgph.0002320A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation.Dong DongSharon AbramowitzGustavo Corrêa MattaArlinda B MorenoElysée NouvetJeni StolowCaitlin PilbeamShelley LeesE K YeohNina GobatTamara Giles-VernickDuring 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.https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0002320&type=printable |
| spellingShingle | Dong Dong Sharon Abramowitz Gustavo Corrêa Matta Arlinda B Moreno Elysée Nouvet Jeni Stolow Caitlin Pilbeam Shelley Lees E K Yeoh Nina Gobat Tamara Giles-Vernick A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation. PLOS Global Public Health |
| 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 |
| url | https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0002320&type=printable |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dongdong arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT sharonabramowitz arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT gustavocorreamatta arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT arlindabmoreno arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT elyseenouvet arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT jenistolow arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT caitlinpilbeam arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT shelleylees arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT ekyeoh arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT ninagobat arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT tamaragilesvernick arapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT dongdong rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT sharonabramowitz rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT gustavocorreamatta rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT arlindabmoreno rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT elyseenouvet rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT jenistolow rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT caitlinpilbeam rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT shelleylees rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT ekyeoh rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT ninagobat rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation AT tamaragilesvernick rapidqualitativemethodsassessmentandreportingtoolforepidemicresponseastheoutcomeofarapidreviewandexpertconsultation |