Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36386858›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sociology2022

Rapid qualitative analysis in a mixed-methods evaluation of an infection prevention intervention in a UK hospital setting during the COVID-19 pandemic: A discussion of the CLEAN study methodology.

Ruchi Higham, Simon Pini, Aaron Quyn, Mikolaj Kowal, Jack Helliwell, Razan Saman, Penny Lewthwaite, Nicola Young, Nikki Rousseau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Ruchi HighamLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Simon PiniLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Aaron QuynLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Mikolaj KowalLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Jack HelliwellLeeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Razan SamanLeeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Penny LewthwaiteLeeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Nicola YoungLeeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Nikki RousseauLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent need for high-quality rapid research. One clinical challenge was how to minimise the risk of transmission in the hospital setting. The CLEAN study conducted a rapid evaluation of the potential utility of a spray-based disinfectant in a hospital setting. The study was undertaken between December 2020 and March 2021 and involved the implementation of the spray in 10 different clinical areas in one UK teaching hospital. A mixed-methods approach was adopted (including observations, surveys, and qualitative interviews) informed by the theories for understanding the implementation of new healthcare technologies. The evaluation found that while the spray had a number of perceived benefits when added to existing disinfection processes, other factors limited its potential utility. These findings informed a number of recommendations for future adoption within hospital settings. This paper describes and reflects on the rapid methodology that allowed us to undertake the study and deliver results in a short space of time. We experienced a number of pressures during set-up and fieldwork due to the challenging conditions caused by the pandemic, and the methodological approach had to evolve throughout the study because of the changing clinical context. The involvement of clinicians from the research setting as full members of the research team was key to the rapid delivery of the research. They provided an essential link to the implementation environment, and their experiential knowledge of the setting added an important perspective to the analysis. Balancing their involvement with their clinical roles was challenging, however, as was coordinating a large and diverse team of interviewers in such a short space of time. Overall, the study highlighted the value of rapid research to inform urgent healthcare decisions in a pandemic. Although our experience suggests that conducting such research requires some practical and methodological trade-offs, we found that there were also numerous benefits of using rapid methods and identified various opportunities to ensure their robustness.

Indexed as

infection prevention and controlrapid analysisrapid appraisalrapid evaluationrapid qualitative researchrapid researchsurface cleaning

Identifiers

PMID36386858
PMCPMC9640776

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.