Five tips for conducting remote qualitative data collection in COVID times: theoretical and pragmatic considerations

Objetivo: Proporcionar cinco consejos metodológicos y pragmáticos para el manejo de la recogida de datos cualitativos durante el contexto de la pandemia de COVID-19. Método: Los consejos presentados en este artículo son extraídos de insights de nuestras propias experiencias como investigadores que realizan investigaciones cualitativas remotas y de la evidencia de la literatura sobre métodos cualitativos. La literatura relevante fue identificada a través de búsquedas utilizando palabras clave relevantes en las siguientes bases de datos: CINAHL, PubMed, SCOPUS y Web of Science. Las búsquedas se limitaron a artículos en inglés y portugués publicados entre 2010 y 2021 para asegurar una comprensión actual del fenómeno. Resultados: Se ofrecen cinco consejos: 1) Preste atención a las cuestiones éticas; 2) Identifique y seleccione potenciales participantes; 3) Escoja el tipo de entrevista remota; 4) Esté preparado para coordinar la entrevista remota; y 5) Promueva el vínculo con su participante. Conclusiones: A pesar de los desafíos en el manejo de la recogida remota de datos, también se reconocen las fortalezas y nuestra experiencia ha demostrado que es viable reclutar y entrevistar participantes remotamente. Las discusiones presentadas en este artículo beneficiarán, ahora y en el futuro, a otros equipos de investigación que puedan considerar recopilar datos para sus estudios cualitativos de forma remota.Objective: To provide five methodological and pragmatic tips for conducting remote qualitative data collection during the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: The tips presented in this article are drawn from insights of our own experiences as researchers conducting remote qualitative research and from the evidence from the literature on qualitative methods. The relevant literature was identified through searches using relevant keywords in the following databases: CINAHL, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. Searches were limited to articles in English and Portuguese, published from 2010 to 2021, to ensure a current understanding of the phenomenon. Results: Five tips are provided: 1) Pay attention to ethical issues; 2) Identify and select potential participants; 3) Choose the type of remote interview; 4) Be prepared to conduct the remote interview; and 5) Build rapport with the participant. Conclusion: Despite the challenges in conducting remote data collection, strengths are also acknowledged and our experience has shown that it is feasible to recruit and interview participants remotely. The discussions presented in this article will benefit, now and in the future, oResearch reported in this publication was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001; and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil, Process numbers 309528/2021-6 and 200580/2022-1

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021

Background Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications. Methods We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements. Results The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care. Conclusion The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021

Background Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications. Methods We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements. Results The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care. Conclusion The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families