Literature DB >> 29263139

Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in healthcare organisation and delivery.

Cecilia Vindrola-Padros1, Bruno Vindrola-Padros2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ability to capture the complexities of healthcare practices and the quick turnaround of findings make rapid ethnographies appealing to the healthcare sector, where changing organisational climates and priorities require actionable findings at strategic time points. Despite methodological advancement, there continue to be challenges in the implementation of rapid ethnographies concerning sampling, the interpretation of findings and management of field research. The purpose of this review was to explore the benefits and challenges of using rapid ethnographies to inform healthcare organisation and delivery and identify areas that require improvement.
METHODS: This was a systematic review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the articles. We developed the search strategy using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Settingframework and searched for peer-reviewed articles in MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, Web of Science and ProQuest Central. We included articles that reported findings from rapid ethnographies in healthcare contexts or addressing issues related to health service use.
RESULTS: 26 articles were included in the review. We found an increase in the use of rapid ethnographies in the last 2‰years. We found variability in terminology and developed a typology to clarify conceptual differences. The studies generated findings that could be used to inform policy and practice. The main limitations of the studies were: the poor quality of reporting of study designs, mainly data analysis methods, and lack of reflexivity.
CONCLUSIONS: Rapid ethnographies have the potential to generate findings that can inform changes in healthcare practices in a timely manner, but greater attention needs to be paid to the reflexive interpretation of findings and the description of research methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017065874. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Keywords:  health services research; healthcare quality improvement; qualitative research; social sciences

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29263139     DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf        ISSN: 2044-5415            Impact factor:   7.035


  30 in total

Review 1.  Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations.

Authors:  Lawrence A Palinkas; Sapna J Mendon; Alison B Hamilton
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2019-01-11       Impact factor: 21.981

2.  Applied Rapid Qualitative Analysis to Develop a Contextually Appropriate Intervention and Increase the Likelihood of Uptake.

Authors:  Allison A Lewinski; Matthew J Crowley; Christopher Miller; Hayden B Bosworth; George L Jackson; Karen Steinhauser; Courtney White-Clark; Felicia McCant; Leah L Zullig
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 3.178

3.  How Context Influences Hospital Readmissions from Skilled Nursing Facilities: A Rapid Ethnographic Study.

Authors:  Roman Ayele; Kirstin A Manges; Chelsea Leonard; Marcie Lee; Emily Galenbeck; Mithu Molla; Cari Levy; Robert E Burke
Journal:  J Am Med Dir Assoc       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 7.802

4.  Development of an implementation and evaluation strategy for the Australian 'Zero Childhood Cancer' (Zero) Program: a study protocol.

Authors:  Frances Rapport; James Smith; Tracey A O'Brien; Vanessa J Tyrrell; Emily Va Mould; Janet C Long; Hossai Gul; Jeffrey Braithwaite
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  How do frontline staff use patient experience data for service improvement? Findings from an ethnographic case study evaluation.

Authors:  Louise Locock; Catherine Montgomery; Stephen Parkin; Alison Chisholm; Jennifer Bostock; Sue Dopson; Melanie Gager; Elizabeth Gibbons; Chris Graham; Jenny King; Angela Martin; John Powell; Sue Ziebland
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2020-02-14

6.  Capturing implementation knowledge: applying focused ethnography to study how implementers generate and manage knowledge in the scale-up of obesity prevention programs.

Authors:  Kathleen P Conte; Abeera Shahid; Sisse Grøn; Victoria Loblay; Amanda Green; Christine Innes-Hughes; Andrew Milat; Lina Persson; Mandy Williams; Sarah Thackway; Jo Mitchell; Penelope Hawe
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 7.327

7.  Stakeholder perspectives on barriers and enablers to recruiting anxious children undergoing day surgery under general anaesthetic: a qualitative internal pilot study of the MAGIC randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jennifer Kettle; Chris Deery; Robert Bolt; Diana Papaioannou; Zoe Marshman
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 2.279

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

Authors:  Andrea L Nevedal; Caitlin M Reardon; Marilla A Opra Widerquist; George L Jackson; Sarah L Cutrona; Brandolyn S White; Laura J Damschroder
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.

Authors:  Shelley S Tworoger; Brian D Gonzalez; Cassandra A Hathaway; Melody N Chavez; Mika Kadono; Dana Ketcher; Dana E Rollison; Erin M Siegel; Anita R Peoples; Cornelia M Ulrich; Frank J Penedo
Journal:  JMIR Cancer       Date:  2021-08-06

10.  Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis.

Authors:  Beck Taylor; Catherine Henshall; Sara Kenyon; Ian Litchfield; Sheila Greenfield
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.