Background Qualitative approaches, alone or in mixed methods, are prominent within implementation science. However, traditional qualitative approaches are resource intensive, which has led to the development of rapid qualitative approaches. Published rapid approaches are often inductive in nature and rely on transcripts of interviews. We describe a deductive rapid analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted for two cohorts of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE). The CFIR guided data collection and analysis. In cohort A, we used our traditional CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where two analysts completed independent in-depth manual coding of interview transcripts using qualitative software. In cohort B, we used our new rapid CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately “coded” notes into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited the matrix. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor. Results Cohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. The facility-level analysis phase provided the greatest savings: 14 h/facility for the traditional analysis versus 3.92 h/facility for the rapid analysis. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches. Conclusion Our rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. Researchers should consider the following when employing our approach: (1) team expertise in the CFIR and qualitative methods, (2) level of detail needed to meet project aims, (3) mode of data to analyze, and (4) advantages and disadvantages of using the CFIR.

The fastest growing segment of the United States HIV population is people aged 50 and older. This heterogeneous group includes people with diverse pathways into HIV positive status in later life, including aging with the disease as well as later life-acquired infections. As people with HIV live into older ages, solving problems of successful secondary prevention and ongoing treatment requires more specific knowledge of the particular aging-related contextual sociocultural, psychosocial, and personal factors salient to the situations of persons living with HIV. Greater knowledge of these factors will help solve challenges to reducing psychological burden and promoting health maintenance for people with HIV. Yet, the current literature on aging and HIV remains nascent. To assess the state of knowledge of the sociocultural and behavioral factors associated with aging with HIV, we conducted a systematic critical content review of peer-reviewed social and behavioral research on aging and HIV to answer the question, “How have older age, and social, cultural, and behavioral aspects of the intersection of HIV and age been addressed in the literature?” We searched First Search, Proquest, Psych Info, Pub Med, Wilson Select Plus, and World Cat and identified 1549 articles. We then reviewed these to select peer-reviewed articles reporting results of research on the social and behavioral aspects of living with HIV at age 50 and older. Fifty-eight publications were identified that met study inclusion criteria. While few publications reported clear age-related differences, there were significant ethnic differences in living with HIV in later life and also differences among older people when groups were defined by mode of transmission. Findings are discussed in light of constructs from gerontology which may contribute to clarifying how later life, life course stage, and psychological development intersect with, influence, and are influenced by HIV disease and long-term anti-retroviral therapy use.

Introduction: Cancer is a leading cause of death in the United States. Although treatments have improved, patients and caregivers continue to report significant gaps in their care. The objective of this study was to examine the views of patients and caregivers on their experiences with current cancer care delivery and identify key strategies to improve the delivery of care. Methods and Materials: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 75 patients and 45 caregivers across the United States. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Results: Participants reported multiple gaps in care delivery, including barriers in health communication with health care providers, lack of elucidation of care goals, lack of care coordination, and challenges in accessing care. Participants identified that greater use of nonphysician providers and alternative formats, such as telephone-based care and home and community-based care, would narrow these gaps. Conclusion: Understanding patients’ and caregivers’ experiences with gaps in cancer care delivery can inform cancer care delivery redesign efforts and lead to targeted interventions that result in patient-centered and family-oriented care.

While genetic testing gains adoption in specialty services such as oncology, neurology, and cardiology, use of genetic and genomic testing has yet to be adopted as widely in primary care. The purpose of this study is to identify and compare patient and primary care provider (PCP) expectations of genetics services in primary care. Patient and PCP perspectives were assessed through a mixed-method approach combining an online survey and semi-structured interviews in a primary care department of a large academic medical institution. A convenience sample of 100 adult primary care patients and 26 PCPs was gathered. The survey and interview questions focused on perceptions of genetic testing, experience with genetic testing, and expectations of genetic services in primary care. Patients felt that their PCP was knowledgeable about genetic testing and expected their PCP to be the first to recognize a need for genetic testing based on family history. Nonetheless, patients reported that PCPs rarely used family history information to discuss genetic risks or order testing. In contrast, PCPs felt uncertain about the clinical utility and scientific value of genetic testing. PCPs were concerned that genetic testing could cause anxiety, frustration, discrimination, and reduced insurability, and that there was unequal access to testing. PCPs described themselves as being "gatekeepers" to genetic testing but did not feel confident or have the desire to become experts in genetic testing. However, PCPs were open to increasing their working knowledge of genetic testing. Within this academic medical center, there is a gap between what patients expect and what primary care providers feel they are adequately prepared to provide in terms of genetic testing services.