评估定性分析所需的时间:卫生服务研究中编码访谈数据的比较方法研究。

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Charlotte Ullrich, Michel Wensing, Nadja Klafke, Thomas Fleischhauer, Sabrina Brinkmöller, Regina Poß-Doering, Christine Arnold
{"title":"评估定性分析所需的时间:卫生服务研究中编码访谈数据的比较方法研究。","authors":"Charlotte Ullrich, Michel Wensing, Nadja Klafke, Thomas Fleischhauer, Sabrina Brinkmöller, Regina Poß-Doering, Christine Arnold","doi":"10.1055/a-2512-8004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A reliable estimation of required resources is essential for sound research. So far, there have only been a few studies on researchers' time investment in qualitative studies. The aim of this study, therefore, was to provide an empirical account of the estimation of timescales of qualitative analysis.In this methodological study, time expenditure was documented and compared for the focused coding of transcripts of semi-structured interviews within five qualitative studies in health services research. Data were analyzed descriptively by means of absolute frequencies.Across studies, focused coding was assessed in 94 interviews with a total interview duration of 52 hours and 44 minutes. The number of interviews per study ranged from n=11 to n=27, with a mean duration of 36 minutes. Total coding time amounted to 76 hours, with a mean of 32 min per interview. Coding time per interview time ratio ranged from 0.75 to 1.52 minutes. On average, the time spent on focused coding roughly corresponds to the duration of the interviews. Focused coding tended to get quicker over time, though variation among studies was high.The results of this study provide a reference for estimating timescales of qualitative analysis and highlights the importance of considering factors such as composition of data and researchers' experience and involvement. In a specific research project, this effort must be balanced against the objective of the analysis, including the desired accuracy, detail and depth. Further research is needed to specify how specific parameters (i. e. nature of the study population, method of data analysis and use of concepts and theories) affect coding in qualitative analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":47653,"journal":{"name":"Gesundheitswesen","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the time required for qualitative analysis: A comparative methodological study of coding interview data in health services research.\",\"authors\":\"Charlotte Ullrich, Michel Wensing, Nadja Klafke, Thomas Fleischhauer, Sabrina Brinkmöller, Regina Poß-Doering, Christine Arnold\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2512-8004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A reliable estimation of required resources is essential for sound research. So far, there have only been a few studies on researchers' time investment in qualitative studies. The aim of this study, therefore, was to provide an empirical account of the estimation of timescales of qualitative analysis.In this methodological study, time expenditure was documented and compared for the focused coding of transcripts of semi-structured interviews within five qualitative studies in health services research. Data were analyzed descriptively by means of absolute frequencies.Across studies, focused coding was assessed in 94 interviews with a total interview duration of 52 hours and 44 minutes. The number of interviews per study ranged from n=11 to n=27, with a mean duration of 36 minutes. Total coding time amounted to 76 hours, with a mean of 32 min per interview. Coding time per interview time ratio ranged from 0.75 to 1.52 minutes. On average, the time spent on focused coding roughly corresponds to the duration of the interviews. Focused coding tended to get quicker over time, though variation among studies was high.The results of this study provide a reference for estimating timescales of qualitative analysis and highlights the importance of considering factors such as composition of data and researchers' experience and involvement. In a specific research project, this effort must be balanced against the objective of the analysis, including the desired accuracy, detail and depth. Further research is needed to specify how specific parameters (i. e. nature of the study population, method of data analysis and use of concepts and theories) affect coding in qualitative analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gesundheitswesen\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gesundheitswesen\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2512-8004\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2512-8004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对所需资源的可靠估计对于健全的研究至关重要。到目前为止,关于研究者在定性研究中投入时间的研究很少。因此,本研究的目的是提供定性分析的时间尺度估计的经验说明。在这项方法学研究中,记录并比较了卫生服务研究中五项定性研究中半结构化访谈文本集中编码的时间支出。用绝对频率对数据进行描述性分析。在所有研究中,重点编码在94个访谈中进行评估,总访谈时间为52小时44分钟。每项研究的访谈次数从n=11到n=27不等,平均持续时间为36分钟。总编码时间为76小时,平均每次采访32分钟。每次采访的编码时间比率从0.75到1.52分钟不等。平均而言,花在集中编码上的时间大致对应于面试的持续时间。随着时间的推移,集中编码的速度往往会越来越快,尽管研究之间的差异很大。本研究的结果为估计定性分析的时间尺度提供了参考,并强调了考虑数据组成和研究人员经验和参与等因素的重要性。在一个具体的研究项目中,这种努力必须与分析的目标相平衡,包括所需的准确性、细节和深度。需要进一步的研究来明确具体的参数(即。研究人群的性质、数据分析的方法以及概念和理论的使用)影响定性分析中的编码。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the time required for qualitative analysis: A comparative methodological study of coding interview data in health services research.

A reliable estimation of required resources is essential for sound research. So far, there have only been a few studies on researchers' time investment in qualitative studies. The aim of this study, therefore, was to provide an empirical account of the estimation of timescales of qualitative analysis.In this methodological study, time expenditure was documented and compared for the focused coding of transcripts of semi-structured interviews within five qualitative studies in health services research. Data were analyzed descriptively by means of absolute frequencies.Across studies, focused coding was assessed in 94 interviews with a total interview duration of 52 hours and 44 minutes. The number of interviews per study ranged from n=11 to n=27, with a mean duration of 36 minutes. Total coding time amounted to 76 hours, with a mean of 32 min per interview. Coding time per interview time ratio ranged from 0.75 to 1.52 minutes. On average, the time spent on focused coding roughly corresponds to the duration of the interviews. Focused coding tended to get quicker over time, though variation among studies was high.The results of this study provide a reference for estimating timescales of qualitative analysis and highlights the importance of considering factors such as composition of data and researchers' experience and involvement. In a specific research project, this effort must be balanced against the objective of the analysis, including the desired accuracy, detail and depth. Further research is needed to specify how specific parameters (i. e. nature of the study population, method of data analysis and use of concepts and theories) affect coding in qualitative analysis.

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
Gesundheitswesen
Gesundheitswesen PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
308
期刊介绍: The health service informs you comprehensively and up-to-date about the most important topics of the health care system. In addition to guidelines, overviews and comments, you will find current research results and contributions to CME-certified continuing education and training. The journal offers a scientific discussion forum and a platform for communications from professional societies. The content quality is ensured by a publisher body, the expert advisory board and other experts in the peer review process.
×
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