在现实、意识形态和公平之间取得平衡:为定性健康研究招募关键信息提供者的批判性思考。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Hanna Luetke Lanfer, Sarah Krawiec, Miriam Schierenbeck, Victoria Touzel, Doreen Reifegerste
{"title":"在现实、意识形态和公平之间取得平衡:为定性健康研究招募关键信息提供者的批判性思考。","authors":"Hanna Luetke Lanfer, Sarah Krawiec, Miriam Schierenbeck, Victoria Touzel, Doreen Reifegerste","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02403-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Key informant interviews (KII) are a widely used method in qualitative health research to gain in-depth insights from individuals with specialized knowledge, experience, or access that is crucial to the research topic. However, there is growing criticism regarding how the selection of key informants is insufficiently described in research. This opacity is problematic as the authority and knowledge of key informants may be given undue weight in research findings, potentially overshadowing other non-expert samples. The resulting imbalance in representation can lead to favoring certain viewpoints while marginalizing others, and thereby reinforcing existing inequities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using our KII study as an example, we demonstrate how we initially composed an ideal sample based on theoretical considerations and subsequently operationalized it in the field. We employed a selective recruitment strategy informed by intersectional theory, targeting physicians with migration backgrounds from Middle Eastern countries for a study on cancer prevention and screening. Our recruitment process combined direct methods, including database searches and email outreach, with indirect methods like snowball sampling and engagement with multipliers. The recruitment strategy was iterative, allowing for ongoing assessment and adaptation to ensure a diverse and representative sample.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The KII study successfully recruited 21 physicians with diverse social categories, including different genders, migration backgrounds, language skills, and medical specialties. Direct recruitment was more effective than indirect methods and allowed for greater control in reaching out to specific subsamples. It highlights the importance of flexible and persistent recruitment strategies to achieve the desired sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This KII study underscores the interplay between methodological ideals and the practical realities of recruiting a diverse, carefully composed sample of key informants in health research. Our intersectional approach aimed to ensure equitable representation by considering power dynamics and refining recruitment strategies, while balancing the challenges of real-world fieldwork-such as engaging busy physicians with specific recruitment criteria-with practical adaptability. Our KII study emphasizes the need for ongoing reflexivity to balance ideality and equity with practical feasibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"276"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555920/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Balancing between reality, ideality, and equity: critical reflections from recruiting key informants for qualitative health research.\",\"authors\":\"Hanna Luetke Lanfer, Sarah Krawiec, Miriam Schierenbeck, Victoria Touzel, Doreen Reifegerste\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-024-02403-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Key informant interviews (KII) are a widely used method in qualitative health research to gain in-depth insights from individuals with specialized knowledge, experience, or access that is crucial to the research topic. However, there is growing criticism regarding how the selection of key informants is insufficiently described in research. This opacity is problematic as the authority and knowledge of key informants may be given undue weight in research findings, potentially overshadowing other non-expert samples. The resulting imbalance in representation can lead to favoring certain viewpoints while marginalizing others, and thereby reinforcing existing inequities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using our KII study as an example, we demonstrate how we initially composed an ideal sample based on theoretical considerations and subsequently operationalized it in the field. We employed a selective recruitment strategy informed by intersectional theory, targeting physicians with migration backgrounds from Middle Eastern countries for a study on cancer prevention and screening. Our recruitment process combined direct methods, including database searches and email outreach, with indirect methods like snowball sampling and engagement with multipliers. The recruitment strategy was iterative, allowing for ongoing assessment and adaptation to ensure a diverse and representative sample.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The KII study successfully recruited 21 physicians with diverse social categories, including different genders, migration backgrounds, language skills, and medical specialties. Direct recruitment was more effective than indirect methods and allowed for greater control in reaching out to specific subsamples. It highlights the importance of flexible and persistent recruitment strategies to achieve the desired sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This KII study underscores the interplay between methodological ideals and the practical realities of recruiting a diverse, carefully composed sample of key informants in health research. Our intersectional approach aimed to ensure equitable representation by considering power dynamics and refining recruitment strategies, while balancing the challenges of real-world fieldwork-such as engaging busy physicians with specific recruitment criteria-with practical adaptability. Our KII study emphasizes the need for ongoing reflexivity to balance ideality and equity with practical feasibility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"276\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555920/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02403-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02403-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:关键信息提供者访谈 (KII) 是定性健康研究中广泛使用的一种方法,它可以从拥有对研究课题至关重要的专业知识、经验或渠道的个人那里获得深入的见解。然而,越来越多的人批评研究中对关键信息提供者的选择描述不足。这种不透明是有问题的,因为在研究结果中,关键信息提供者的权威和知识可能会被赋予不应有的分量,有可能会盖过其他非专家样本。由此造成的代表性不平衡可能导致某些观点受到青睐,而另一些观点则被边缘化,从而加剧了现有的不公平现象:方法:以我们的 KII 研究为例,我们展示了如何根据理论考虑初步组成理想样本,并随后在实地将其付诸实施。我们采用了以交叉理论为基础的选择性招募策略,针对来自中东国家、具有移民背景的医生进行癌症预防和筛查研究。我们的招募过程结合了直接方法(包括数据库搜索和电子邮件推广)和间接方法(如滚雪球取样和与乘数效应者接触)。招募策略是反复进行的,以便不断进行评估和调整,确保样本的多样性和代表性:KII 研究成功招募了 21 名医生,他们来自不同的社会阶层,包括不同的性别、移民背景、语言技能和医学专业。直接招募比间接招募更有效,而且在接触特定子样本时可以有更大的控制权。它强调了灵活而持久的招募策略对于获得理想样本的重要性:这项 KII 研究强调了在健康研究中招募多样化、精心组成的关键信息提供者样本时,方法理想与实际现实之间的相互作用。我们的交叉方法旨在通过考虑权力动态和完善招募策略来确保公平的代表性,同时平衡现实世界中实地工作所面临的挑战--比如让繁忙的医生参与到特定的招募标准中来--以及实际的适应性。我们的 KII 研究强调了持续反思的必要性,以平衡思想性和公平性与实际可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Balancing between reality, ideality, and equity: critical reflections from recruiting key informants for qualitative health research.

Background: Key informant interviews (KII) are a widely used method in qualitative health research to gain in-depth insights from individuals with specialized knowledge, experience, or access that is crucial to the research topic. However, there is growing criticism regarding how the selection of key informants is insufficiently described in research. This opacity is problematic as the authority and knowledge of key informants may be given undue weight in research findings, potentially overshadowing other non-expert samples. The resulting imbalance in representation can lead to favoring certain viewpoints while marginalizing others, and thereby reinforcing existing inequities.

Methods: Using our KII study as an example, we demonstrate how we initially composed an ideal sample based on theoretical considerations and subsequently operationalized it in the field. We employed a selective recruitment strategy informed by intersectional theory, targeting physicians with migration backgrounds from Middle Eastern countries for a study on cancer prevention and screening. Our recruitment process combined direct methods, including database searches and email outreach, with indirect methods like snowball sampling and engagement with multipliers. The recruitment strategy was iterative, allowing for ongoing assessment and adaptation to ensure a diverse and representative sample.

Results: The KII study successfully recruited 21 physicians with diverse social categories, including different genders, migration backgrounds, language skills, and medical specialties. Direct recruitment was more effective than indirect methods and allowed for greater control in reaching out to specific subsamples. It highlights the importance of flexible and persistent recruitment strategies to achieve the desired sample.

Conclusions: This KII study underscores the interplay between methodological ideals and the practical realities of recruiting a diverse, carefully composed sample of key informants in health research. Our intersectional approach aimed to ensure equitable representation by considering power dynamics and refining recruitment strategies, while balancing the challenges of real-world fieldwork-such as engaging busy physicians with specific recruitment criteria-with practical adaptability. Our KII study emphasizes the need for ongoing reflexivity to balance ideality and equity with practical feasibility.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
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