Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36386857›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in sociology2022

Changing gear: Experiences of how existing qualitative research can adapt to an unfolding health emergency.

Theresa Jones, Luisa Enria, Shelley Lees, Mark Marchant, Olivia Tulloch

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in sociology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 55% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Theresa JonesAnthrologica, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Luisa EnriaLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Shelley LeesLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Mark MarchantLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Olivia TullochAnthrologica, Oxford, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBAnthrologica · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Long-term research projects are not always able to adapt to a new crisis and incorporate characteristics and approaches of rapid research to produce useful data quickly. Project AViD was a programme of research that ran between 2018 and 2022 to examine factors that shape vaccine confidence. The project initially focused on five country case studies looking at vaccines for Ebola, Measles, Rift Valley Fever and Zika. The COVID-19 pandemic emerged during this time and provided an opportunity to contribute to the pandemic's 'million-dollar question'-how to deploy COVID-19 vaccines. Drawing on our experience as researchers, and specifically from AViD, we propose seven factors that can influence when and how longer-term qualitative research projects can adapt and contribute to the response to an unfolding health emergency. These include: (1) the phase of research in which the emergency hits; (2) the relative significance of the emergency in the research setting; (3) the specific methods and research team capacities; (4) existing operational links; (5) supportive ecosystems; (6) flexibility in research contracting and funding; and (7) the research team attitude and approach. We close with two considerations for longer-term research projects that find themselves having to "change gear" amid a public health emergency-the need to re-assess risks and benefits and the need to protect equitable partnerships.

Indexed as

health emergencylong-termpivotqualitative researchrapid

Identifiers

PMID36386857
PMCPMC9650412
OpenAlexW4307457790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.