Social scientists have a robust history of contributing to better understandings of and responses to disease outbreaks. The implementation of qualitative research in the context of infectious epidemics, however, continues to lag behind in the delivery, credibility, and timeliness of findings when compared with other research designs. The purpose of this article is to reflect on our experience of carrying out three research studies (a rapid appraisal, a qualitative study based on interviews, and a mixed-methods survey) aimed at exploring health care delivery in the context of COVID-19. We highlight the importance of qualitative data to inform evidence-based public health responses and provide a way forward to global research teams who wish to implement similar rapid qualitative studies. We reflect on the challenges of setting up research teams, obtaining ethical approval, collecting and analyzing data in real-time and sharing actionable findings.

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has set unprecedented demand on the healthcare workforce around the world. The UK has been one of the most affected countries in Europe. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) in relation to COVID-19 and care delivery models implemented to deal with the pandemic in the UK.MethodsThe study was designed as a rapid appraisal combining: (1) a review of UK healthcare policies (n=35 policies), (2) mass media and social media analysis of front-line staff experiences and perceptions (n=101 newspaper articles, n=1 46 000 posts) and (3) in-depth (telephone) interviews with front-line staff (n=30 interviews). The findings from all streams were analysed using framework analysis.ResultsLimited personal protective equipment (PPE) and lack of routine testing created anxiety and distress and had a tangible impact on the workforce. When PPE was available, incorrect size and overheating complicated routine work. Lack of training for redeployed staff and the failure to consider the skills of redeployed staff for new areas were identified as problems. Positive aspects of daily work reported by HCWs included solidarity between colleagues, the establishment of well-being support structures and feeling valued by society.ConclusionOur study highlighted the importance of taking into consideration the experiences and concerns of front-line staff during a pandemic. Staff working in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic advocated clear and consistent guidelines, streamlined testing of HCWs, administration of PPE and acknowledgement of the effects of PPE on routine practice.

Qualitative researchers are under increasing time demands to rapidly collect, analyze, and disseminate the results of their findings. Adaptations to qualitative methods may be required to enable the use of timely and relevant qualitative data across multiple disciplinary settings. The aim of this review is to briefly explore the ways in which data collection and analysis methods have been adapted in qualitative research to deal with short study timeframes. We carried out a two-phased systematic review of the literature and determined there were six primary reasons why rapid techniques were used: (a) reduce time, (b) reduce cost, (c) increase the amount of collected data, (d) improve efficiency, (e) improve accuracy, and (f) obtain a closer approximation to the narrated realities of research participants. In addition, we analyzed the characteristics of the articles, how traditional methods were adapted and evaluated, the benefits and limitations of using rapid techniques, and future recommendations.

The 2013-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa highlighted both the successes and limitations of social science contributions to emergency response operations. An important limitation was the rapid and effective communication of study findings. A systematic review was carried out to explore how rapid qualitative methods have been used during global heath emergencies to understand which methods are commonly used, how they are applied, and the difficulties faced by social science researchers in the field. We also asses their value and benefit for health emergencies. The review findings are used to propose recommendations for qualitative research in this context. Peer-reviewed articles and grey literature were identified through six online databases. An initial search was carried out in July 2016 and updated in February 2017. The PRISMA checklist was used to guide the reporting of methods and findings. The articles were assessed for quality using the MMAT and AACODS checklist. From an initial search yielding 1444 articles, 22 articles met the criteria for inclusion. Thirteen of the articles were qualitative studies and nine used a mixed-methods design. The purpose of the rapid studies included: the identification of causes of the outbreak, and assessment of infrastructure, control strategies, health needs and health facility use. The studies varied in duration (from 4 days to 1 month). The main limitations identified by the authors were: the low quality of the collected data, small sample sizes, and little time for cross-checking facts with other data sources to reduce bias. Rapid qualitative methods were seen as beneficial in highlighting context-specific issues that need to be addressed locally, population-level behaviors influencing health service use, and organizational challenges in response planning and implementation. Recommendations for carrying out rapid qualitative research in this context included the early designation of community leaders as a point of contact, early and continuous sharing of findings, and development of recommendations with local policy makers and practitioners.

Changing health-care climates mean evaluators need to provide findings within shorter time frames, but challenges remain in the creation of rapid research designs capable of delivering quality data to inform decision-making processes. We conducted a review of articles to grapple with these challenges and explore the ways in which rapid evaluations have been used in health care. We found different labels being used to define rapid evaluations and identified a trend in the design of evaluations, where evaluators are moving away from short studies to longer evaluations with multiple feedback loops or cyclical stages. Evaluators are using strategies to speed up evaluations: conducting data collection and analysis in parallel, eliminating the use of transcripts, and utilizing larger evaluation teams to share the workload. Questions persist in relation to the suitability of rapid evaluation designs, the trustworthiness of the data, and the degree to which evaluation findings are used to make changes in practice.