Table 1 Traditional versus rapid approach using the CFIR
Traditional Deductive CFIR Approach (Cohort A) | Rapid Deductive CFIR Approach (Cohort B) | |
Data Management | ||
Create MS Word CFIR Facility Memo Template. Create project and codebook in qualitative software program. See Table 2 and Additional File 2. | N/A | |
aCreate MS Excel CFIR Construct by Facility Matrix Template (CFIR constructs as rows and facilities as columns). See Additional File 3. | ||
Time | 1 h/project set-up | .5 h/project set-up |
bTranscribe audio recordings. | N/A | |
De-identify and import transcripts into software program. | N/A | |
Time | .5 h/interview | 0 h/interview |
Copy and paste summaries, ratings, and rating rationales into matrix. See Table 3 and Additional File 3. | N/A | |
Time | .5 h/facility | 0 h/facility |
Total Time | 1 h/project set-up + (.5 h/interview + .5 h/facility) | .5 h/project set-up |
Data Collection | ||
aConduct and record semi-structured interviews. See Additional File 1. | ||
Total Time | 1 h/interview | 1 h/interview |
Data Analysis: Coding and Adjudication Process: Process is repeated for each interview | ||
Primary analyst: Code verbatim transcript independently in qualitative software program and use comments as needed. | cPrimary analyst: Write notes during interview and “code” into matrix immediately after interview; use comments and highlight areas that need clarification or timestamps. Write (and update) facility summary with each interview. See Table 3 & Additional File 3. | |
Time | 1.5 h/interview | 1.72 h/interview |
Secondary analyst: Code verbatim transcript independently and use comments as needed. | Secondary analyst: Review notes in matrix, listen to audio recording, and use comments and different colored text to highlight additional notes, edits, quotes, or timestamps. | |
Traditional Qualitative Approach (Cohort A) | Rapid Qualitative Approach (Cohort B) | |
Time | 2.5 h/interview | 1.70 h/interview |
Primary analyst: Review coding for differences and meet with secondary analyst to reach consensus. | Primary analyst: Review notes for differences and meet with secondary analyst to reach consensus. | |
Time | 1.5 h/interview | .5 h/interview |
Total Time | 5.5 h/interview | 3.92 h/interview |
Data Analysis: Rating and Adjudication Process: Process is completed for each facility | ||
Export coded data and aggregate in facility memo; memos were an average of 108 pages/facility. See Table 2 and Additional File 2. | N/A | |
Primary Analyst: Review all data (all participants in facility) in facility memo and write summary for each CFIR construct and the facility overall. See Table 3. | Primary Analyst: Review all notes (all participants in facility) in facility column in matrix (see above); data is already in note form and facility summary has been written. See Table 3 and Additional File 3. | |
Primary Analyst: Rate each CFIR construct in facility memo and provide rating rationale. | Primary Analyst: Rate each CFIR construct in facility column in matrix and provide rating rationale. | |
Time | 8 h/facility | 1.69 h/facility |
Secondary Analyst: Review facility memo and edit summaries, ratings, and rating rationales. | Secondary Analyst: Review facility column in matrix and edit ratings and rating rationales | |
Time | 4 h/facility | 1.23 h/facility |
Primary analyst: Review facility memo for differences and meet with secondary analyst to reach consensus. | Primary analyst: Review facility column in matrix for differences and meet with secondary analyst to reach consensus | |
Time | 2 h/facility | 1 h/facility |
Total Time | 14 h/facility | 3.92 h/facility |
Data Interpretation: | ||
aReview and interpret data by facility; write facility level summaries. | ||
aReview and interpret data by construct; organize facilities by implementation outcomes and identify constructs that manifested positively across facilities, negatively across facilities, or distinguished between facilities with high and low implementation success. | ||
Total Time | 100 h/project | 100 h/project |