As federal, state, and local governments continue to test innovative approaches to health care delivery, the ability to produce timely and reliable evidence of what works and why it works is crucial. There is limited literature on methodological approaches to rapid-cycle qualitative research. The purpose of this article is to describe the advantages and limitations of a broadly applicable framework for in-depth qualitative analysis placed within a larger rapid-cycle, multisite, mixed-method evaluation. This evaluation included multiple cycles of primary qualitative data collection and quarterly and annual reporting. Several strategies allowed us to be adaptable while remaining rigorous; these included planning for multiple waves of qualitative coding, a hybrid inductive/deductive approach informed by a cross-program evaluation framework, and use of a large team with specific program expertise. Lessons from this evaluation can inform researchers and evaluators functioning in rapid assessment or rapid-cycle evaluation contexts.

We describe engagement strategies derived from a diverse range of programs. Successful programs considered physicians' values and engagement as components of process and policy, rather than viewing them as exogenous factors affecting innovation adoption. These types of approaches enabled programs to accelerate acceptance of innovations within organizations.

No abstract