Clark, Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir

Deom, Noémie

Johnson, Ginger A

Vindrola-Padros, Cecilia

English

UCL Discovery

TYPE EditorialPUBLISHED 20 June 2023DOI 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1216834OPEN ACCESSEDITED AND REVIEWED BYHannah Bradby,Uppsala University, Sweden*CORRESPONDENCENoémie Deomn.deom@ucl.ac.ukSigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clarksigrun.clark@ucl.ac.uk†These authors have contributed equally to thiswork and share first authorshipRECEIVED 04 May 2023ACCEPTED 06 June 2023PUBLISHED 20 June 2023CITATIONDeom N, Clark SE, Johnson GA andVindrola-Padros C (2023) Editorial: Rapidresearch in action: lessons from the field.Front. Sociol. 8:1216834.doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1216834COPYRIGHT© 2023 Deom, Clark, Johnson andVindrola-Padros. This is an open-access articledistributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,distribution or reproduction in other forums ispermitted, provided the original author(s) andthe copyright owner(s) are credited and thatthe original publication in this journal is cited, inaccordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction ispermitted which does not comply with theseterms.Editorial: Rapid research in action:lessons from the fieldNoémie Deom1*†, Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark1*†,Ginger A. Johnson2 and Cecilia Vindrola-Padros11Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), University College London, London,United Kingdom, 2United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Geneva, SwitzerlandKEYWORDSrapid research, rapid methods, rapid evaluation, rapid appraisal, rapid ethnography, rapidethnographic assessment, participatory researchEditorial on the Research TopicRapid research in action: lessons from the fieldAs we continue to recover from the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, wereflect on the lessons we learned in using evidence-based recommendations for policy andprogramming to control the spread of an infectious disease. Over the past several years,many research teams around the world worked tirelessly to generate high quality evidencein record time (Vindrola-Padros et al., 2020). Rapid appraisals and rapid assessments wereimplemented widely as diagnostic tools or to provide a “snapshot” of complex situations(Johnson and Vindrola-Padros, 2017). New innovations and interventions were rapidlyevaluated and adapted using formative approaches such as rapid feedback and rapid cycleevaluations (Vindrola-Padros et al., 2021). Decades of work in the field of rapid research andevaluation meant that we were ready, from a methodological point of view, to respond tothe pressures of adapting research design and implementation to the pace of the “real world”(Vindrola-Padros, 2021).In this Research Topic, we synthesize, criticize and pay tribute to the use ofrapid methods across disciplines during the COVID-19 pandemic and for other healthemergencies and settings (pre- and post-pandemic). The authors featured within thisResearch Topic explore important questions about the practicalities of implementing rapidstudies, the challenges they faced, the contributions of rapid research and evaluation, and thelessons learned that can be helpful for other teams and the future development of this field.Articles draw from community based, health systems and research carried out in clinicalsettings that explore a wide range of health-related topics such as cancer research, mentalhealth, female contraception, prenatal stress, infection prevention, drug use, and the deliveryof care in the context of complex health emergencies.Guidance and frameworks for rapid decision-making,insights, team-building, and building trustThe COVID-19 pandemic led to innovative methodological insights as researchersnegotiated the need to obtain valuable qualitative data under short timeframes. The RapidInsights (RI) approach developed by Chandler et al. uses data from a wide variety ofstakeholders to understand their immediate needs and allow quicker decision-making.Williams et al. developed a template of steps to evaluate telehealth services that serveFrontiers in Sociology 01 frontiersin.orgDeom et al. 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1216834to produce rapid insights and ultimately aid decision-makers.With CLIP-Q (Collaborative and Intensive Pragmatic QualitativeResearch), Horwood et al. propose pragmatic strategies for effectivecollaborations between academia and healthcare systems, thusharmonizing the quality standards of academic research with thedemands and pressures of emergent issues. With limited to noaccess to their field site, Burn et al. explore the benefits andchallenges of open data collection methods. Bright reminds usthat there was a shift to the online sphere prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and describes research processes increasingly movingfurther online to coordinate teams and collect and analyze datain transnational health research contexts. Both Eaves et al. andWilliams et al.’s use of rapid methodologies shows the transitionof research, medical treatment and consultation from face-to-face to online platforms during the pandemic, which may havewidened the access to care gap for those who cannot accessdigital technology.Several articles in this Research Topic address the pragmaticchoices rapid research necessarily entails. For instance, multi-country studies may require considering whether to implement ateam-based or solo researcher approach (Wanat et al.), whetheror not to transcribe all data (Wanat et al.; Suchman et al.) andwhether common research terms such as “academic collaborations”or “sharing” may be fraught with legacies of extractivist science(Bright). Several papers also explore the challenges and benefitsof diversity within teams. For instance, while Machin et al. givepractical advice on how academic teams can develop long-termrelationships with people with personal experience of mentalhealth issues and involvement in research (or “lived experienceresearchers”), Higham et al. describe the challenges and benefits ofconducting research with team members with dual clinical roles.Eaves et al. discuss the inclusion of community stakeholders inonline ethnographies while Suchman et al. explore the degree ofautonomy of local teams regarding cross-national analysis needs.Other papers address the challenges of conducting rapid researchamidst crises. Howells and Dancause explore the difficulties ofbeing a local researcher after a disaster, as LeNoble et al. reflecton the research team’s wellbeing while navigating the challenges ofa pandemic.Building trust with participants when the time allotted to datacollection is limited also requires practical strategies. In the contextof a transnational global health study,Walton et al. promote regularmeetings and the inclusion of stakeholders’ interests and values inthe results. In their rapid ethnography, Rosteius et al. recommendthat researchers thrive to build an emotional connection whileusing professional inexperience to access detailed information.Both articles emphasize the importance of transparency andopenness about all stages of the rapid research process with keystakeholders and participants.Use of rapid research for greaterinclusivity and to reduce (in)equitableSouth-North relationshipsArticles in this special edition also address issues of inequalitywhen conducting rapid research and how rapid methodologiescan (and have) focused explicitly on increasing the participationof affected populations throughout the research cycle. Eguiluzet al. identify key inequalities between Global South and GlobalNorth in relation to analyzing data and disseminating findingsfrom their research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Theirresearch focuses on ensuring equitable and safe partnerships withlocally-led research, with methods adapted to protect the safetyof the researchers. Bright uses rapid ethnographic methods toidentify gender, economic and language barriers for setting up,administering, and enrolling patients into international clinical trialresearch. For example, in South Africa, some participants wereuncertain whether or not they could seek care due to insufficientsupport from employers, husbands and/or tribal leaders. Scottet al. discuss key considerations for conducting rapid researchwith marginalized communities that have had unequal access toresources and power. Their research focuses on rural communitiesfrom Southern New Mexico (USA) and Vanuatu which lackedinfrastructure and had prior negative experiences with researchand researchers.Pieterse uses rapid research methods to highlight fundingdisparities between different woredas (districts) in the SomaliRegion of Ethiopia, where the Somali regional government hadbeen given more control of health budgeting. However, withthis shift in autonomy came limited support for the headsof local woredas on how to govern health budgeting. Genderimbalance in leadership roles was also apparent with all-maleleads of health bureaus and health centers. Johnson et al.’s rapidresearch shows conflicting COVID-19 policies across the USAmay have disproportionately impacted Southeastern states whichhad the lowest vaccination rates and highest death rates inthe country. The authors suggest that historically marginalizedpopulations (e.g., due to race, disabilities, and poverty) in theselocations were disproportionality affected by the pandemic andthat unclear and often contradicting COVID-19 policies fromthe federal government, executive state governments, and localgovernmentsmay have amplified the lack of knowledge and distrustaround the seriousness of the virus. Gorbea Díaz et al. similarlydiscuss how insights gained from their rapid research highlightedhow inequitable distribution of aid (especially to lower incomeresidents) in Puerto Rico following the 2017 hurricanes, amplifiedpre-existing inequalities between marginalized populations andthose with privilege and power.Localizing transnational interventionsand evaluations for time-sensitivecontextsTransnational and global health-oriented articles included inthis issue also raise important discussions on the role of rapidresearch in informing health interventions and evaluations intime-sensitive contexts. The work by Pieterse demonstrates inthe Somali Region of Ethiopia, rapid research can be usefulin (re)orienting planned interventions to the practical realitiesof resource-constrained settings. Both Bright and Suchmanet al., discuss how transnational research also requires flexiblemethodologies which can be adapted to local contexts as needed.Frontiers in Sociology 02 frontiersin.orgDeom et al. 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1216834Rapid research techniques (such as rapid ethnographic inquiriesand qualitative analysis) were incorporated into their studies inorder to meet multiple objectives of large-scale multi-sited studieswhile also paying attention to local needs and priorities. Forexample, Suchman et al. detail a concurrent combination of moretraditional analysis and rapid qualitative analysis methodologies toaccommodate linguistic differences and to meet multiple researchobjectives. In fact, a number of authors similarly address navigatingthe boundaries between long-term and short-term studies, ortraditional vs. more rapid methods. For instance, Wanat et al.address the issue of what makes research rapid, while Jones et al.reflect on their experience adapting a longer-term study to rapidresearch in order to respond to an unfolding health emergency.To analyze healthcare services in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic, Williams et al. describe how rapid evaluationmethods (REM) were tailored to their specific context andstakeholder environments. Using a case study of a rapid evaluationof telehealth in pediatric care, this article shares a step-by-steptemplate for evaluations of telehealth services (including enablersand challenges) most useful for informed decision-making bygovernment health providers, pediatricians and families.The future of rapid researchThe themes identified in this introduction also point to areas forfuture development in this field. One important area of focus willneed to be the quality of rapid research and evaluation (keeping inmind that reduced timeframes might lead to research that ends upbeing rushed instead of rapid). The Rapid Research Evaluation andAppraisal Lab (RREAL) is currently designing the first Standardsfor Rapid Evaluation and Appraisal Methods (STREAM), whichseek to improve the transparency and completeness of reporting inrapid evaluations and appraisals (https://osf.io/nhfm3/).The papers in this Research Topic also highlight importantquestions in relation to the scale of research, particularly in thecase of qualitative research, which tends to rely on the use ofsmall and rich datasets. An interesting area of future explorationin the field of rapid qualitative research and evaluation will bethe development and use of larger datasets, crossing disciplinaryboundaries and drawing from digital tools traditionally applied inthe field of “Big Qual Data”. These tools can facilitate the rapidanalysis of qualitative data to better enable the use of findings innear real-time to inform changes in policy and practice. RREAL iscurrently conducting research in this field, more information canbe found here: https://osf.io/b85xs/.Key questions are raised in this volume and elsewhere regardinghow we can create meaningful relationships with patients, carersand members of the public so they can properly engage withthe topics we are studying, how we are studying them, whois included in research and how findings are used. Patient andpublic involvement and engagement (PPIE) in rapid research hasparticular challenges that might not be present in longer studies(Gilchrist et al., 2022), yet important work is currently underwayto develop a model for involvement and engagement that can besuitable for rapid timeframes. One example is SPRINT (Strategiesfor Patient and Public Involvement in Research in Time-SensitiveContexts), a network of organizations working on PPIE that canoperate under a rapid response model so the views, preferencesand needs of patients and members of the public can remain at thecenter of rapid research and evaluation.The future of rapid research is ripe for experimentation andnew developments. The field of rapid research and evaluationhas used its rich history of rapid ethnographic assessments,rapid appraisals, rapid ethnographies and rapid evaluations tomature into a distinct field of inquiry, with its own approaches,contributions and challenges. As wemove on to new developments,we will need to face the challenges ahead for developing strategiesto address the issues and key questions raised by the authors inthis Research Topic—focusing on the quality of rapid research,the expansion of its scale (while still retaining localized knowledgeand contexts), and the development of inclusive models of researchand evaluation.Author contributionsND, SC, GJ, and CV-P developed the editorial, managed theauthor submissions, and logistical requirements of this ResearchTopic. All authors contributed to the article and approved thesubmitted version.In memoriamDr. Dakhina Mitra. A passionate advocate for children’s rightsand participatory research. A generous sharer of knowledge whobelieved research can change the world. We do too.Conflict of interestThe authors declare that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could beconstrued as a potential conflict of interest.Publisher’s noteAll claims expressed in this article are solely those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliatedorganizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and thereviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, orclaim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed orendorsed by the publisher.Frontiers in Sociology 03 frontiersin.orgDeom et al. 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1216834ReferencesGilchrist, K., Iqbal, S., andVindrola-Padros, C. (2022). The role of patient and publicinvolvement in rapid qualitative studies: can we carry out meaningful PPIE with timepressures? Res. Involv. Engag. 8, 67. doi: 10.1186/s40900-022-00402-5Johnson, G. A., and Vindrola-Padros, C. (2017). Rapid qualitative research methodsduring complex health emergencies: a systematic review of the literature. Soc. Sci. Med.189, 63–75. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.07.029Vindrola-Padros, C. (2021). Doing Rapid Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.Vindrola-Padros, C., Brage, E., and Johnson, G. A. (2021). Rapid, responsive, andrelevant?: a systematic review of rapid evaluations in health care. Am. J. Eval. 42,13–27.Vindrola-Padros, C., Chisnall, G., Cooper, S., Dowrick, A., Djellouli,N., Symmons, S. M., et al. (2020). Carrying out rapid qualitativeresearch during a pandemic: emerging lessons from COVID-19.Qualitat. Health Res. 30, 2192–2204. doi: 10.1177/1049732320951526Frontiers in Sociology 04 frontiersin.org

Editorial: Rapid research in action: lessons from the field

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10172844/1/Rapid%20research%20in%20action%20editorial.pdf

Editorial: Rapid research in action: lessons from the field

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery