(PS5-D87) Comparisons of Novel and Traditional Qualitative Analytic Approaches to Identifying Implementation Determinants

Implementation research can help improve mental health services by identifying barriers and facilitators (i.e., determinants) that influence the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based mental health services (Bauer et al., 2020; Bauer et al., 2015). Qualitative research is an important component of identifying determinants but can be time-consuming, which may delay the research-to-practice implementation (Bauer et al., 2020). Rapid analysis methods aim to address this potential time delay. This project compares the efficiency and effectiveness of rapid analysis (summary templates and matrix analysis) vs. traditional (transcripts and thematic analysis) qualitative methods. Efficiency will be tested by comparing the rapid and traditional qualitative approaches on the time it takes to prepare data for analysis and the time it takes to analyze the data. Effectiveness will be tested by comparing the similarity of findings between the two methods. 

Using a sample of 21 interviews with legal stakeholders, the rapid qualitative approach involved live summaries of interviews using a templated form (Hamilton, 2013; Sobo et al., 2003), then using matrix analysis (Averill, 2002) to identify key barriers and facilitators that were recurrent (Uscher-Pines et al., 2020). The traditional qualitative approach involved manual transcription of interviews followed by thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis is currently ongoing. Preliminary results point to the efficiency of the rapid qualitative approaches. Preparing summary templates took 2,369 minutes and matrix analysis took 2,982 minutes. The traditional qualitative approach, on the other hand, has taken 2,369 minutes to merely prepare the transcripts. Thematic analysis is projected to take 19,080 minutes, after which we will compare the similarity of findings across the two methodologies.

In sum, preliminary results suggest promising efficiency of rapid analysis techniques compared to traditional analysis techniques for qualitative data. Completed analyses by the time of this presentation will demonstrate the extent to which rapid analysis techniques increase efficiency in qualitative analysis compared to traditional qualitative methods, and whether these techniques lead to the same conclusions about key barriers and facilitators to implementation. These results will shed light on potential methodological advances in qualitative methods and implementation research, which may foster quicker dissemination of empirical findings to practitioners and contribute to a reduction in the longstanding research-to-practice gap in mental health services.