ArticleInternational journal of qualitative methods
Working With Large Qualitative Datasets: Key Processes From an Implementation Study in a Complex Clinical Setting.
Article in International journal of qualitative methods. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Collecting and analyzing qualitative research with large datasets is inherently complex and often difficult to convey in traditional manuscripts. Contemporary guidance on managing such datasets, especially those with multiple data sources, is limited. Implementation science, which studies and tests methods to promote uptake of evidence-based practices into routine use, often requires complex qualitative data and analysis and faces unique challenges. These challenges include multiple data collection time points and the need for rapid analysis and feedback to sites. In this paper we reflect on the data collection, management, and analysis of over 400 pieces of qualitative data from three different sources (semi-structured interviews, meeting minutes, and open-ended survey responses) as part of a large implementation study. The data discussed are derived from a type 3 Hybrid-design study of H-HOPE (Hospital to Home: Optimizing the Preterm Infant's Environment) in six diverse neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). We first thoroughly outline the methods our team used in collecting and analyzing our large qualitative dataset. We then discuss four key processes that aided our data collection, management, and analysis: structure and consistency, prompt responsive alterations to site specific procedures, an iterative and extensive analysis approach led by case summaries, and utilization of both an initial 'quick' and more in-depth traditional qualitative analysis approaches. Recommendations for future studies working with large qualitative data sets with multiple sources of data are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.