Enhancing Rigor, Quality, and Patient Engagement in Qualitative Research: A Step-By-Step Guide to Applying Reflexive Thematic Analysis to the Experience-Based Co-Design Methodology.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Qualitative Health Research Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1177/10497323241291798
Rebecca Wright, Kavita Chapla, Ashley Booth, Katie E Nelson, Anna Peeler, Christy Swain, Sarah Won, David S Wu
{"title":"Enhancing Rigor, Quality, and Patient Engagement in Qualitative Research: A Step-By-Step Guide to Applying Reflexive Thematic Analysis to the Experience-Based Co-Design Methodology.","authors":"Rebecca Wright, Kavita Chapla, Ashley Booth, Katie E Nelson, Anna Peeler, Christy Swain, Sarah Won, David S Wu","doi":"10.1177/10497323241291798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Experience-based co-design (EBCD) is a qualitative form of participatory action research supported by a toolkit providing guidance and recommendations. The toolkit is intentionally non-prescriptive, allowing EBCD practitioners the freedom to flex the approach to cater to the needs of their specific populations and contexts. For less experienced researchers, the lack of specificity can be a challenge when navigating activities such as data analysis, particularly as wider literature provides limited insights to methods, processes, methodological critique, and lessons learned. Despite increasing use of EBCD, few practitioners publish details of their methods, processes, or decision-making for how they adapt EBCD for their studies, focusing more often on findings and outcomes. This can impact understanding and development of rigor in EBCD literature. In this methodology paper, we respond to this gap by providing a case example and step-by-step guide for application of reflexive thematic analysis to EBCD, with consideration of reflexivity, a conceptual framing for interpreting experiences, opportunities for greater participant involvement, and strengths and challenges of using reflexive thematic analysis within EBCD.</p>","PeriodicalId":48437,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Health Research","volume":" ","pages":"10497323241291798"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241291798","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Experience-based co-design (EBCD) is a qualitative form of participatory action research supported by a toolkit providing guidance and recommendations. The toolkit is intentionally non-prescriptive, allowing EBCD practitioners the freedom to flex the approach to cater to the needs of their specific populations and contexts. For less experienced researchers, the lack of specificity can be a challenge when navigating activities such as data analysis, particularly as wider literature provides limited insights to methods, processes, methodological critique, and lessons learned. Despite increasing use of EBCD, few practitioners publish details of their methods, processes, or decision-making for how they adapt EBCD for their studies, focusing more often on findings and outcomes. This can impact understanding and development of rigor in EBCD literature. In this methodology paper, we respond to this gap by providing a case example and step-by-step guide for application of reflexive thematic analysis to EBCD, with consideration of reflexivity, a conceptual framing for interpreting experiences, opportunities for greater participant involvement, and strengths and challenges of using reflexive thematic analysis within EBCD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在定性研究中提高严谨性、质量和患者参与度:将反思性主题分析应用于基于经验的协同设计方法的一步一步指南。
基于经验的共同设计(EBCD)是参与式行动研究的一种定性形式,由提供指导和建议的工具包支持。该工具包有意不作规定,使 EBCD 实践者能够自由地灵活运用该方法,以满足特定人群和环境的需求。对于经验不足的研究人员来说,在进行数据分析等活动时,缺乏具体性可能是一个挑战,尤其是更广泛的文献对方法、过程、方法论批评和经验教训的见解有限。尽管使用 EBCD 的情况越来越多,但很少有实践者公布他们的方法、过程或决策细节,说明他们如何在研究中调整 EBCD,而更多地关注研究结果和成果。这会影响对 EBCD 文献的理解和严谨性的发展。在这篇方法论论文中,我们针对这一差距,提供了一个案例,并逐步指导如何将反思性专题分析应用于 EBCD,其中考虑到了反思性、解释经验的概念框架、更多参与者参与的机会,以及在 EBCD 中使用反思性专题分析的优势和挑战。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.
期刊最新文献
"Switching Hats": Insights From Experienced Clinical Interviewers Turned Novice Research Interviewers. "Look at You Having Fun With Your Markers in Here!": Child Life Specialists' Countering of Infantilizating Narratives in Adult Oncology. How Mobile Health Can Change the Contexts of Living With HIV and Engaging With Treatment and Care in Iran: A Realist-Informed Qualitative Study. Living With Cancer: Child-Parent Dyads' Perspectives and Experiences From a Private Tertiary Care Hospital in Pakistan. Sero-Kinship: How Young People Living With HIV/AIDS Survive in Southeast Nigeria.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1