Editorial: Rapid research in action: lessons from the field

Déom, Noémie; Clark, Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir; Johnson, Ginger A.; Vindrola‐Padros, Cecilia

doi:10.3389/fsoc.2023.1216834

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In short, an "impact team" is not a static and clearly boundarized group of researchers but one that continuously evolves. Against the background of the recent preoccupation with rapid teams and teamwork in crises, such as global pandemics (Beebe, 2014;Deom et al, 2023;Kumpunen & Vindrola-Padros, 2022;Rankl et al, 2021), we instead emphasize the importance of reflecting upon the little-understood dynamic nature of research teams for achieving impact through time. We tease out how to achieve this in our reflections on our own practice below.…”

Section: Qualitative Research Teams Impact and Continuitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Delivering impact via the ebb-and-flow of a research team: Reflection on a long-term program of research into a global societal challenge*

Bednarek,

Cacciatori,

Chalkias

et al. 2023

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we draw insights from a 15-year qualitative research program exploring catastrophe insurance and gaps in insurance protection as risks escalate within a world impacted by a climate emergency. We suggest that the ebb-and-flow of our research team's composition and activities through time was inextricably linked with our ability to have a sustained impact on such a large-scale societal issue. The essay situates itself within the research impact and team literature, narrates the trajectory of our research program and team development, and develops a framework for effectively managing impact-oriented qualitative research teams over time. Our framework illustrates key aspects of this process including team (re)forming, building team and individual stickability, performing, and managing team flux. We also present 10 practical takeaways for how these aspects can be managed effectively to produce long-term impact work to address grand challenges.

show abstract

Section: Qualitative Research Teams Impact and Continuitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Delivering impact via the ebb-and-flow of a research team: Reflection on a long-term program of research into a global societal challenge*

Bednarek,

Cacciatori,

Chalkias

et al. 2023

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the process for carrying these out, and the standards for ensuring quality of data and findings, are still being refined by methodologists. 19 In utilizing rapid research approaches, then, researchers will obviously face trade-offs between rigor, and time and cost considerations, a fact which should be made transparent especially to the intended end-users of the knowledge products of such research. Nonetheless, researchers in the local setting, particularly those working in fields or contexts that require short turnaround times for research evidence (e.g., emergencies and disasters, health policy), should now begin considering the integration of these rapid research approaches in their methods toolkit so that they can work "rapidly, remotely, responsively, and nimbly" 20 as they respond to the call to honor the social contract between science and society.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Rapid Evidence Generation and Synthesis in the Researcher’s Methods Toolkit

Antonio, MD, MPH

2023

Acta Med Philipp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is currently a predominance of an instrumental view of science, which has produced a social contract between science and society.1 From this perspective, science contributes to the improvement of the human condition through the production of knowledge that can be used as the basis for improving policies, programs, and practices in various spheres of life. This view has permeated different aspects of the scientific enterprise including science governance (e.g., transition of measurement of scientific impact from economic to social/societal) 2, research ethics (i.e., integration of social/public benefit in the ethical criteria for assessing research involving human participants) 3, and the thrust for both evidence-informed decision-making (i.e., the integration of evidence from research and other sources in the process of decision-making for various purposes)4 and knowledge translation in health (i.e., the generation, synthesis, and application of knowledge to improve health, as well as health services and the health system)5. One of the barriers to this ideal, however, is the lag time between the demand for knowledge/evidence from end-users such as policymakers, decision-makers and clinicians, and the production and synthesis of such knowledge/evidence from scientists and researchers.6 This is attributed to, among others, the administrative and quality assurance procedures that a research idea has to go through before it is implemented as a study (e.g., search for funding, technical and ethics review, contract and award set-up, etc.), the actual implementation of the research itself (e.g., search for, and recruitment of, research participants, collection, and analysis of data, etc.), dissemination efforts (e.g., peer review and publication), and the post-dissemination activities (e.g., indexing, integration in evidence synthesis reports, etc.). This lag time is usually cited as being 17 years for clinical research but is actually highly variable as it depends on the research area, not to mention the identified start- and endpoints of measurement of the lag time.6,7 The chasm between evidence generation and evidence use has taken on greater significance in light of the global experience with the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapidly evolving situation of this public health emergency put to light the need for faster turnaround times in evidence production, synthesis, and dissemination so that evidence will be available in a timely manner for its intended end-users. As one observer noted, the pandemic has forced the scientific community to find ways to “speed up science”.8 A way by which the lag time can be reduced is through the use of rapid evidence generation and evidence synthesis approaches, such as the one utilized by Elepaño et al.9 in this issue of Acta Medica Philippina. In their report, the authors undertook a quality improvement initiative, by way of a chart review, to inform a specific set of stakeholders regarding application and use of Philippine COVID-19 Living Recommendations. As mentioned by the authors in their paper, their research was facilitated through the use of 1) funding and institutional approvals facilitated by a multidisciplinary team, 2) short and adaptive study protocol, 3) simplified sampling method and data collection, and 4) rapid implementation and analysis of the project. As the name implies, rapid evidence generation and evidence synthesis approaches refer to adaptation of research methods to allow for faster collection, processing, and analysis of research data, essentially compressing the research timeframe.10 Discussion in the literature of rapid approaches to research usually point out that these have roots in Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP) and Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) used in other disciplines since around the 1990s or earlier.11,12 Some of these rapid research techniques include rapid surveys13, rapid qualitative interviews14, rapid ethnography15, rapid qualitative data analysis16,17, and several approaches to rapid reviews/evidence synthesis18. Given the limitations of space, readers interested in rapid research approaches may consult the references cited in this editorial for further information on these evolving methodologies. A careful perusal of the literature will show that there is not as of yet any universally agreed definition as to what constitutes rapid research except that the research process is accelerated through omission adaptation of certain steps of current research procedures. Furthermore, the process for carrying these out, and the standards for ensuring quality of data and findings, are still being refined by methodologists.19 In utilizing rapid research approaches, then, researchers will obviously face trade-offs between rigor, and time and cost considerations, a fact which should be made transparent especially to the intended end-users of the knowledge products of such research. Nonetheless, researchers in the local setting, particularly those working in fields or contexts that require short turnaround times for research evidence (e.g., emergencies and disasters, health policy), should now begin considering the integration of these rapid research approaches in their methods toolkit so that they can work “rapidly, remotely, responsively, and nimbly”20 as they respond to the call to honor the social contract between science and society.

show abstract

Conducting applied health research in alcohol-related liver disease: a rapid qualitative inquiry with healthcare providers

Hemrage,

Parkin,

Deluca

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Current treatment options for alcohol-related liver disease are limited by evidence, clinical and practice gaps. Applied health research can promote the generation of high-quality evidence by embedding experimental research designs in clinical settings. The present qualitative inquiry aims to explore healthcare providers’ experiences of conducting applied health research in alcohol-related liver disease. Methods: A rapid qualitative approach was adopted to fulfil the exploratory nature of the present qualitative inquiry. Sixteen healthcare providers with varying roles (administrative, clinical, nursing) and formal duties (clinical, research) were interviewed. Inductive thematic analysis was employed to identify relevant themes and subthemes from the data. Results: Three major themes emerged from the interview data. These include the motives to support alcohol-related liver disease research within clinical settings, descriptions of the research-clinical interface, and the challenges encountered while facilitating and conducting research. Identified barriers to applied health research included intraprofessional and extraprofessional role conflicts, time constraints and insufficient resource availability. Conclusion: Although healthcare providers expressed a strong commitment towards advancing research in ARLD, structural and organisational challenges affected their involvement. These challenges underly the existing research gap in alcohol-related liver disease care. The findings favour the adoption of a community-based participatory research approach to advance evidence-making interventions in alcohol-related liver disease treatment, improve patient outcomes and foster an egalitarian research culture.

show abstract

Editorial: Rapid research in action: lessons from the field

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Delivering impact via the ebb-and-flow of a research team: Reflection on a long-term program of research into a global societal challenge*

Delivering impact via the ebb-and-flow of a research team: Reflection on a long-term program of research into a global societal challenge*

Integrating Rapid Evidence Generation and Synthesis in the Researcher’s Methods Toolkit

Conducting applied health research in alcohol-related liver disease: a rapid qualitative inquiry with healthcare providers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About