Focus and methodological adaptations of qualitative research during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review and textual narrative synthesis

A. Haruna, Stephen Chukwuma Ogbodo
{"title":"Focus and methodological adaptations of qualitative research during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review and textual narrative synthesis","authors":"A. Haruna, Stephen Chukwuma Ogbodo","doi":"10.18203/issn.2454-2156.intjscirep20232190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research is a vital driver of the response to health emergencies. This scoping review aimed to characterize the application of qualitative research during the COVID-19 pandemic, with two primary objectives: identifying the qualitative research methods and adaptations applied, and summarizing the research questions which the studies sought to answer. CINAHL and PsycINFO were systematically searched for qualitative studies relating to COVID-19 and published between January 2020 and November 2021. Articles were screened and included in the review using pre-defined eligibility criteria. A total of 535 articles met the inclusion criteria, mostly from North America and Europe. An observed methodological adaptation was a surge in virtually conducted research – most studies collected data through interviews, 52% of which were conducted virtually using telephone or teleconferencing technology. Similarly, 27% of the focus group discussions and 20% of the ethnographies were conducted virtually. A textual narrative synthesis of all reviewed studies identified four major groups: health-related studies, education-related studies, studies about vaccine acceptance, and studies in specific population groups, such as the elderly, ethnic minorities, and working-class women in patriarchal contexts. There was a seeming neglect of the experience of youths, and insufficient attention has been paid to the dynamics of medical distrust with regard to vaccine hesitancy. Qualitative research has been applied to extensively explore people’s perceptions and experiences of the pandemic. The progressive improvement of virtual research methods will be beneficial for future pandemic preparedness. More representation of research from under-resourced regions of the world is also needed.","PeriodicalId":14297,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Scientific Reports","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-2156.intjscirep20232190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research is a vital driver of the response to health emergencies. This scoping review aimed to characterize the application of qualitative research during the COVID-19 pandemic, with two primary objectives: identifying the qualitative research methods and adaptations applied, and summarizing the research questions which the studies sought to answer. CINAHL and PsycINFO were systematically searched for qualitative studies relating to COVID-19 and published between January 2020 and November 2021. Articles were screened and included in the review using pre-defined eligibility criteria. A total of 535 articles met the inclusion criteria, mostly from North America and Europe. An observed methodological adaptation was a surge in virtually conducted research – most studies collected data through interviews, 52% of which were conducted virtually using telephone or teleconferencing technology. Similarly, 27% of the focus group discussions and 20% of the ethnographies were conducted virtually. A textual narrative synthesis of all reviewed studies identified four major groups: health-related studies, education-related studies, studies about vaccine acceptance, and studies in specific population groups, such as the elderly, ethnic minorities, and working-class women in patriarchal contexts. There was a seeming neglect of the experience of youths, and insufficient attention has been paid to the dynamics of medical distrust with regard to vaccine hesitancy. Qualitative research has been applied to extensively explore people’s perceptions and experiences of the pandemic. The progressive improvement of virtual research methods will be beneficial for future pandemic preparedness. More representation of research from under-resourced regions of the world is also needed.
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
2019冠状病毒病大流行期间定性研究的重点和方法调整:范围审查和文本叙述综合
研究是应对突发卫生事件的重要推动力。本综述旨在描述在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间定性研究的应用,主要目标有两个:确定定性研究方法和应用的适应性,并总结研究试图回答的研究问题。系统检索了2020年1月至2021年11月期间发表的与COVID-19相关的定性研究。使用预先定义的资格标准对文章进行筛选并纳入审查。共有535篇文章符合纳入标准,主要来自北美和欧洲。观察到的方法适应是虚拟进行的研究激增-大多数研究通过访谈收集数据,其中52%是通过虚拟电话或远程会议技术进行的。同样,27%的焦点小组讨论和20%的民族志研究都是虚拟进行的。对所有审查的研究进行文本叙述综合,确定了四个主要群体:与健康有关的研究,与教育有关的研究,关于疫苗接受的研究,以及特定人群的研究,如老年人,少数民族和父权制背景下的工人阶级妇女。人们似乎忽视了年轻人的经验,而且没有充分注意到在疫苗犹豫方面医学不信任的动态。定性研究已被广泛应用于探索人们对大流行的看法和经验。虚拟研究方法的逐步改进将有利于未来的大流行防范。来自世界资源不足地区的研究也需要更多的代表性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Transforming weight measurement: a cutting-edge IoT-enabled smart weight machine for centralized price control of products A closer observation of the dedicated responsibilities of nurses at public hospitals in Bangladesh Navigating a paradigm shift; food and drug administration approved Tarlatamab-dlle redefining the landscape of small cell lung cancer therapy Orthodontic treatment modalities of intrusion: a review A clinical research site pharmacy for the division of AIDS sponsored clinical trials in a low middle income country
×
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