Comparison of telephone and in-person interview modalities: duration, richness, and costs in the context of exploring determinants of equitable access to community health services in Meru, Kenya

Luke N. Allen, Sarah Karanja, John Tlhakanelo, David Macleod, Malebogo Tlhajoane, Andrew Bastawrous
{"title":"Comparison of telephone and in-person interview modalities: duration, richness, and costs in the context of exploring determinants of equitable access to community health services in Meru, Kenya","authors":"Luke N. Allen, Sarah Karanja, John Tlhakanelo, David Macleod, Malebogo Tlhajoane, Andrew Bastawrous","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.13.24304203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Our research team is conducting phenomenological interviews in Kenya with people who have not been able to access community eye health services, aiming to explore the barriers and ideas for potential service modifications. We conducted an embedded study that compared in-person and telephone interview modalities in terms of time requirements, costs, and data richness. Methods: A team of six interviewers conducted 31 in-person interviews and 31 telephone interviews using the same recruitment strategy, topic guide, and analytic matrix for each interview. We compared the mean duration; mean number of themes reported by each participant; total number of themes reported; interviewer rating of perceived richness; interviewer rating of perceived ease of building rapport; number of days taken by the team to complete all interviews; and all costs associated with conducting the interviews in each modality. Findings: In-person interviews were 44% more expensive and took 60% longer to complete than our telephone interviews (requiring 5 days and 3 days respectively). The average in-person interview lasted 110 seconds longer than the average telephone interview (p=0.05) and generated more words and themes. However, the full set of interviews from both approaches identified similar numbers of barriers (p=0.14) and the same number of solutions (p=0.03). Interviewers universally felt that the in-person approach was associated with better rapport and higher quality data (p=0.01). Triangulation of themes revealed good agreement, with 88% of all solutions occurring in both sets, and no areas of thematic dissonance. Discussion: The in-person approach required more time and financial resources, but generated more words and themes per person, and was perceived to afford richer data by interviewers. However, this additional richness did not translate into a greater number of themes that our team can act upon to improve services.","PeriodicalId":501023,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Primary Care Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Primary Care Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.13.24304203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Our research team is conducting phenomenological interviews in Kenya with people who have not been able to access community eye health services, aiming to explore the barriers and ideas for potential service modifications. We conducted an embedded study that compared in-person and telephone interview modalities in terms of time requirements, costs, and data richness. Methods: A team of six interviewers conducted 31 in-person interviews and 31 telephone interviews using the same recruitment strategy, topic guide, and analytic matrix for each interview. We compared the mean duration; mean number of themes reported by each participant; total number of themes reported; interviewer rating of perceived richness; interviewer rating of perceived ease of building rapport; number of days taken by the team to complete all interviews; and all costs associated with conducting the interviews in each modality. Findings: In-person interviews were 44% more expensive and took 60% longer to complete than our telephone interviews (requiring 5 days and 3 days respectively). The average in-person interview lasted 110 seconds longer than the average telephone interview (p=0.05) and generated more words and themes. However, the full set of interviews from both approaches identified similar numbers of barriers (p=0.14) and the same number of solutions (p=0.03). Interviewers universally felt that the in-person approach was associated with better rapport and higher quality data (p=0.01). Triangulation of themes revealed good agreement, with 88% of all solutions occurring in both sets, and no areas of thematic dissonance. Discussion: The in-person approach required more time and financial resources, but generated more words and themes per person, and was perceived to afford richer data by interviewers. However, this additional richness did not translate into a greater number of themes that our team can act upon to improve services.
电话访谈与面对面访谈方式的比较:在探索肯尼亚梅鲁地区公平获得社区卫生服务的决定因素的背景下的持续时间、丰富程度和成本
背景:我们的研究团队正在肯尼亚对那些无法获得社区眼科医疗服务的人进行现象学访谈,旨在探讨潜在的服务障碍和对服务进行修改的想法。我们进行了一项嵌入式研究,从时间要求、成本和数据丰富程度方面对面对面访谈和电话访谈两种方式进行了比较。研究方法一个由六名访谈员组成的小组进行了 31 次面对面访谈和 31 次电话访谈,每次访谈都使用相同的招募策略、主题指南和分析矩阵。我们比较了访谈的平均持续时间、每位参与者报告的主题平均数量、报告的主题总数、访谈者对感知到的数据丰富程度的评分、访谈者对感知到的建立融洽关系的难易程度的评分、团队完成所有访谈所需的天数,以及以每种方式进行访谈的所有相关成本。研究结果与电话访谈(分别需要 5 天和 3 天)相比,面对面访谈的成本高 44%,耗时长 60%。面对面访谈的平均持续时间比电话访谈的平均持续时间长 110 秒(p=0.05),并且产生了更多的词语和主题。然而,两种方法的全套访谈发现了相似数量的障碍(p=0.14)和相同数量的解决方案(p=0.03)。访谈者普遍认为,面对面访谈与更好的融洽关系和更高质量的数据有关(p=0.01)。对主题的三角测量显示出良好的一致性,所有解决方案中有 88% 出现在两套方案中,没有主题不一致的地方。讨论面谈法需要更多的时间和财力,但每人产生的词语和主题更多,而且访谈者认为这种方法能提供更丰富的数据。然而,这种额外的丰富性并没有转化为更多的主题,使我们的团队可以据此改进服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信