Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Oral presentation
  • Open Access

Maximising the impact of qualitative research in feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials: guidance for researchers

  • Alicia O'Cathain1,
  • Pat Hoddinott2,
  • Simon Lewin3,
  • Kate Thomas1,
  • Bridget Young4,
  • Joy Adamson5,
  • Yvonne Jansen6,
  • Nicola Mills7,
  • Graham Moore8 and
  • Jenny Donovan7
Trials201516(Suppl 2):O88

https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-O88

Published: 16 November 2015

Keywords

Public HealthData CollectionFuture StudyResearch QuestionQualitative Research

Feasibility studies are increasingly undertaken in preparation for randomised controlled trials in order to explore uncertainties and enable trialists to optimise the intervention or the conduct of the trial. Qualitative research can be used to examine and address key uncertainties prior to a full trial. We present guidance that researchers, research funders and reviewers may wish to consider when assessing or undertaking qualitative research within feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials. The guidance was compiled by an expert panel of 10 researchers from three countries who have experience of this endeavour. The guidance consists of 16 items within five domains: research questions, data collection, analysis, team work and reporting. Example items are: Consider the range of qualitative methods and approaches that might be used to address the key feasibility questions, including dynamic or iterative ones which allow learning from early qualitative research to be implemented before undertaking further qualitative research within the feasibility study; Consider the timing of analysis, which might be in stages in a dynamic approach. This guidance may help researchers to consider the full range of contributions that qualitative research can make in relation to their particular trial. The guidance may also help researchers and others to reflect on the utility of such qualitative research in practice, so that trial teams can decide when and how best to use these approaches in future studies.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
ScHARR, Sheffield, UK
(2)
University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
(3)
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway
(4)
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
(5)
University of York, York, UK
(6)
Behavioural and Societal Sciences, Delft, The Netherlands
(7)
University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
(8)
Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Copyright

© O'Cathain et al. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement