Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37889886›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2023

A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation.

Dong Dong, Sharon Abramowitz, Gustavo Corrêa Matta, Arlinda B Moreno, Elysée Nouvet, Jeni Stolow, Caitlin Pilbeam, Shelley Lees, E K Yeoh, Nina Gobat and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Dong DongSchool of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9784-6472
Sharon AbramowitzCenter for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3671-8842
Gustavo Corrêa MattaDepartment Interdisciplinary Centre for Public Health Emergencies NIESP/CEE, Center for Data Integration and Knowledge for Health, FIOCRUZ - Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Salvador, Brazil.
Arlinda B MorenoDepartment of Epidemiology and Quantitative Methods in Health, National School of Public Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8282-6521
Elysée NouvetSchool of Health Studies, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Jeni StolowDepartment of Social, Behavioral, and Population Sciences, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States of America.
Caitlin PilbeamANU Medical School, School of Sociology, the Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Shelley LeesDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
E K YeohSchool of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Nina GobatCountry Readiness Strengthening, World Health Emergencies Program, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Tamara Giles-VernickAnthropology & Ecology of Disease Emergence Unit, Department of Global Health, Institut Pasteur/Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2873-8544

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Identifiers

PMID37889886
PMCPMC10610454

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.