方法学的见解,优势和创新手稿标题:在马拉维进行定性医疗保健研究访谈的经验教训:定性评估

IF 3.9 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
L. Suwedi-Kapesa, M. Kinshella, Hana Mitchell, M. Vidler, Q. Dube, D. Goldfarb, K. Kawaza, A. L. Nyondo-Mipando
{"title":"方法学的见解,优势和创新手稿标题:在马拉维进行定性医疗保健研究访谈的经验教训:定性评估","authors":"L. Suwedi-Kapesa, M. Kinshella, Hana Mitchell, M. Vidler, Q. Dube, D. Goldfarb, K. Kawaza, A. L. Nyondo-Mipando","doi":"10.1177/16094069231153610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the growth of qualitative health research in low- and middle-income countries, local health professionals are increasingly involved in facilitating interviews with their fellow health workers. Understanding the methodological implications of such situations is required to ensure high-quality study findings and to build capacity and skills for interviewers with clinical backgrounds working with limited resources. This article reports a qualitative process evaluation of a study that assessed barriers and enablers of implementing bubble continuous positive airway pressure in Malawi. Findings were summarized through an iterative process of reflection on what worked, what did not work, areas for improvement, structural challenges, negotiating dual roles as nurses and researchers and the professional hierarchy within the health care system. Comprehensive practical training was critical to conducting qualitative research in a health setting. Interviewers were health workers themselves and required skills in reflexivity to effectively probe and navigate interviewing other health professionals, including senior staff. The main challenge in conducting interviews in a resource-limited healthcare setting was time constraints, which were compounded by staffing shortages. Lessons from this qualitative evaluation highlight the importance of training in reflexivity, engaging interviewers as collaborators and reserving adequate time to accommodate healthcare workers’ multiple roles and responsibilities.","PeriodicalId":48220,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological Insights, Advantages and Innovations Manuscript Title: Lessons Learned in Conducting Qualitative Healthcare Research Interviews in Malawi: A Qualitative Evaluation\",\"authors\":\"L. Suwedi-Kapesa, M. Kinshella, Hana Mitchell, M. Vidler, Q. Dube, D. Goldfarb, K. Kawaza, A. L. Nyondo-Mipando\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/16094069231153610\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With the growth of qualitative health research in low- and middle-income countries, local health professionals are increasingly involved in facilitating interviews with their fellow health workers. Understanding the methodological implications of such situations is required to ensure high-quality study findings and to build capacity and skills for interviewers with clinical backgrounds working with limited resources. This article reports a qualitative process evaluation of a study that assessed barriers and enablers of implementing bubble continuous positive airway pressure in Malawi. Findings were summarized through an iterative process of reflection on what worked, what did not work, areas for improvement, structural challenges, negotiating dual roles as nurses and researchers and the professional hierarchy within the health care system. Comprehensive practical training was critical to conducting qualitative research in a health setting. Interviewers were health workers themselves and required skills in reflexivity to effectively probe and navigate interviewing other health professionals, including senior staff. The main challenge in conducting interviews in a resource-limited healthcare setting was time constraints, which were compounded by staffing shortages. Lessons from this qualitative evaluation highlight the importance of training in reflexivity, engaging interviewers as collaborators and reserving adequate time to accommodate healthcare workers’ multiple roles and responsibilities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Qualitative Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Qualitative Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231153610\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231153610","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着低收入和中等收入国家质量健康研究的增长,当地卫生专业人员越来越多地参与促进与卫生工作者同行的访谈。需要了解这种情况的方法学影响,以确保高质量的研究结果,并为具有临床背景的访谈者在有限的资源下工作建立能力和技能。本文报告了对一项研究的定性过程评估,该研究评估了马拉维实施气泡持续气道正压通气的障碍和促成因素。通过反复思考哪些有效,哪些无效,需要改进的领域,结构性挑战,护士和研究人员的双重角色谈判,以及医疗保健系统内的专业等级制度,总结了研究结果。全面的实践培训对于在卫生环境中进行定性研究至关重要。采访者本身就是卫生工作者,需要具备自省性技能,才能有效地调查和引导采访其他卫生专业人员,包括高级工作人员。在资源有限的医疗环境中进行面试的主要挑战是时间限制,而人员短缺又加剧了时间限制。这一定性评估的经验教训强调了反思性培训的重要性,让面试官成为合作者,并预留足够的时间来适应医护人员的多重角色和责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodological Insights, Advantages and Innovations Manuscript Title: Lessons Learned in Conducting Qualitative Healthcare Research Interviews in Malawi: A Qualitative Evaluation
With the growth of qualitative health research in low- and middle-income countries, local health professionals are increasingly involved in facilitating interviews with their fellow health workers. Understanding the methodological implications of such situations is required to ensure high-quality study findings and to build capacity and skills for interviewers with clinical backgrounds working with limited resources. This article reports a qualitative process evaluation of a study that assessed barriers and enablers of implementing bubble continuous positive airway pressure in Malawi. Findings were summarized through an iterative process of reflection on what worked, what did not work, areas for improvement, structural challenges, negotiating dual roles as nurses and researchers and the professional hierarchy within the health care system. Comprehensive practical training was critical to conducting qualitative research in a health setting. Interviewers were health workers themselves and required skills in reflexivity to effectively probe and navigate interviewing other health professionals, including senior staff. The main challenge in conducting interviews in a resource-limited healthcare setting was time constraints, which were compounded by staffing shortages. Lessons from this qualitative evaluation highlight the importance of training in reflexivity, engaging interviewers as collaborators and reserving adequate time to accommodate healthcare workers’ multiple roles and responsibilities.
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
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
International Journal of Qualitative Methods SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal Highlights Impact Factor: 5.4 Ranked 5/110 in Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary – SSCI Indexed In: Clarivate Analytics: Social Science Citation Index, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Scopus Launched In: 2002 Publication is subject to payment of an article processing charge (APC) Submit here International Journal of Qualitative Methods (IJQM) is a peer-reviewed open access journal which focuses on methodological advances, innovations, and insights in qualitative or mixed methods studies. Please see the Aims and Scope tab for further information.
×
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