Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

Table 4 Traditional versus rapid approach: differences in analyst hours and transcription costs

Hours	Traditional CFIR approach (cohort A)	Rapid CFIR approach (cohort B)	Differences in hours
^aTotal data	50 interview audio hours across 16 facilities		0 h
Data management	34 total hours 1 h/project set-up = 1 .5 h × 50 interviews = 25 .5 h × 16 facilities = 8	.5 total hours .5 h/project set-up = .5 0 h × 50 interviews = 0 0 h × 16 facilities = 0	33.5 h
Data collection	50 total hours	50 total hours	0 h
Data analysis: interviews	275 total hours 5.5 h × 50 interviews	196 total hours 3.92 h × 50 interviews	79 h
Data analysis: facilities	224 total hours 14 h × 16 facilities	63 total hours 3.92 h × 16 facilities	161 h
Data interpretation	100 total hours	100 total hours	0 h
Total hours	683 h	409.5 h	273.5 h
Transcription cost	Traditional CFIR approach (cohort A)	Rapid CFIR approach (cohort B)	Differences in cost
Transcription	$7250 $145/h × 50 h	$0	$7250

^aCohort A included 57 interviews across 17 facilities (1–4 interviews/facility); because one facility only had one interview, the need to aggregate data for that facility was eliminated. In effect, these calculations use 16 facilities for both cohorts. Cohort B included 72 interviews across 16 facilities (3–6 interviews/facility). However, due to a higher proportion of 30-min interviews for cohort B, both cohorts had approximately 50 audio hours

ISSN: 1748-5908