MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283213931 · doi:10.1177/16094069221107144

Methodological Insights From a Virtual, Team-Based Rapid Qualitative Method Applied to a Study of Providers’ Perspectives of the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Hospital-To-Home Transitions

2022· article· en· W4283213931 on OpenAlexafffund
Hardeep Singh, Terence Tang, Rachel Thombs, Alana Armas, Jason X Nie, Michelle Nelson, Carolyn Steele Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsTrillium Health CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoBridgepoint Active HealthcareUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMarch of Dimes Canada
KeywordsRigourQualitative researchPandemicHealth careData collectionTelemedicineComputer scienceQualitative propertyNursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid virtual qualitative methods have gained attention in applied health research to produce timely, actionable results while complying with the pandemic restrictions. However, rigour and analytical depth may be two areas of concern for rapid qualitative methods. Methods: In this paper, we present an overview of a virtual team-based rapid qualitative method within a study that explored health care providers' perspectives of how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted hospital-to-home transitions, lessons learned in applying this method, and recommendations for changes. Using this method, qualitative data were collected and analyzed using the Zoom Healthcare videoconferencing platform and telephone. Visual summary maps were iteratively created from the audio recordings of each interview through virtual analytic meetings with the team. Maps representing similar settings (e.g. hospital providers and community providers) and Sites were combined to form meta-maps representing that group's experience. The combinations of data that best fit together were used to form the final meta-map through discussion. Results: This case example is used to provide a description of how to apply a virtual team-based rapid qualitative method. This paper also offers a discussion of the opportunities and challenges of applying this method, in particular how the virtual team-based rapid qualitative method could be modified to produce timely results virtually while attending to rigour and depth. Conclusions: We contend that the virtual team-based rapid qualitative data collection and analysis method was useful for generating timely, rigorous, and in-depth knowledge about transitional care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The recommended modifications to this method may enhance its utility for researchers to apply to their qualitative research studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.176
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.153
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1760.153
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0130.020
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0040.016
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.573
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.065 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207