Assessing the time required for qualitative analysis: A comparative methodological study of coding interview data in health services research

Abstract

Background

A reliable estimation of required resources is essential for sound research. So far, there have only been a few studies on researchers’ time investment in qualitative studies. The aim of this study, therefore, was to provide an empirical account of the estimation of timescales of qualitative analysis.

Methods

In this methodological study, time expenditure was documented and compared for the focused coding of transcripts of semi-structured interviews within five qualitative studies in health services research. Data were analyzed descriptively by means of absolute frequencies.

Results

Across studies, focused coding was assessed in 94 interviews with a total interview duration of 52 hours and 44 minutes. The number of interviews per study ranged from n=11 to n=27, with a mean duration of 36 minutes. Total coding time amounted to 76 hours, with a mean of 32 min per interview. Coding time per interview time ratio ranged from 0.75 to 1.52 minutes. On average, the time spent on focused coding roughly corresponds to the duration of the interviews. Focused coding tended to get quicker over time, though variation among studies was high.

Conclusion

The results of this study provide a reference for estimating timescales of qualitative analysis and highlights the importance of considering factors such as composition of data and researchers’ experience and involvement. In a specific research project, this effort must be balanced against the objective of the analysis, including the desired accuracy, detail and depth. Further research is needed to specify how specific parameters (i. e. nature of the study population, method of data analysis and use of concepts and theories) affect coding in qualitative analysis.

Keywords

Methodological study - qualitative analysis - coding time - health services research - study planning - qualitative interviews

Schlüsselwörter

Methodologische Studie - Qualitative Analyse - Kodierzeit - Versorgungsforschung - Studienplanung - Qualitative Interviews

Publication History

Received: 12 July 2024

Accepted after revision: 13 December 2024

Article published online:
14 April 2025

• References

• 1 Wensing M, Ullrich C. Description of health services research. In: Wensing M, Ullrich C, Hrsg. Foundations of health services research: Principles, Methods, and Topics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023: 3-14
• 2 Allen LN, Azab H, Jonga R. et al. Rapid methods for identifying barriers and solutions to improve access to community health services: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open 2023; 13: e066804
• 3 Vindrola-Padros C, Vindrola-Padros B. Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in healthcare organisation and delivery. BMJ Quality & Safety 2018; 27: 321-330
• 4 Vindrola-Padros C, Johnson GA. Rapid techniques in qualitative research: A critical review of the literature. Qualitative Health Research 2020; 30: 1596-1604
• 5 Ramanadhan S, Revette AC, Lee RM. et al. Pragmatic approaches to analyzing qualitative data for implementation science: an introduction. Implementation Science Communications 2021; 2: 70
• 6 Watkins D. Rapid and Rigorous qualitative data analysis: The “RADaR” Technique for Applied Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2017; 16 160940691771213
• 7 Burgess-Allen J, Owen-Smith V. Using mind mapping techniques for rapid qualitative data analysis in public participation processes. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 2010; 13: 406-415
• 8 Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. Bmj 2000; 320: 114-116
• 9 Ullrich C, Poß-Doering R. Qualitative methods in health services research. In: Wensing M, Ullrich C, Hrsg. Health services research: Principles, methods, and topics. Springer; 2023
• 10 Greenwood M, Kendrick T, Davies H. et al. Hearing voices: Comparing two methods for analysis of focus group data. Applied nursing research : ANR 2017; 35: 90-93
• 11 Rogers M. Coding Qualitative Data. In: Okoko JM, Tunison S, Walker KD, Hrsg. Varieties of qualitative research methods: Selected contextual perspectives. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023: 73-78
• 12 Wollin-Giering S, Hoffmann M, Höfting J. et al. Automatic transcription of English and German qualitative Interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative. Social Research 2024; 25
• 13 Krueger RAK, Casey MA. Focus Groups. A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014
• 14 Gale RC, Wu J, Erhardt T. et al. Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration. Implementation Science 2019; 14: 11
• 15 Taylor B, Henshall C, Kenyon S. et al. Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019993
• 16 Neal JW, Neal ZP, VanDyke E. et al. Expediting the analysis of qualitative data in evaluation: A Procedure for the Rapid Identification of Themes From Audio Recordings (RITA). American Journal of Evaluation 2015; 36: 118-132
• 17 Eaton K, Stritzke W, Ohan J. Using scribes in qualitative research as an alternative to transcription. Qualitative Report 2019; 24: 586-605
• 18 Mbuagbaw L, Lawson DO, Puljak L. et al. A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2020; 20: 226
• 19 Bossert J, Mahler C, Boltenhagen U. et al. Protocol for the process evaluation of a counselling intervention designed to educate cancer patients on complementary and integrative health care and promote interprofessional collaboration in this area (the CCC-Integrativ study. PLoS One 2022; 17: e0268091
• 20 Arnold C, Hennrich P, Koetsenruijter J. et al. Cooperation networks of ambulatory health care providers: exploration of mechanisms that influence coordination and uptake of recommended cardiovascular care (ExKoCare): a mixed-methods study protocol. BMC Family Practice 2020; 21: 168
• 21 Arnold C, Hennrich P, Wensing M. et al. Keeping up with evidence-based recommendations – A qualitative interview study with general practitioners on information-seeking behaviour in cardiovascular care. BMC Primary Care 2023; 118
• 22 Michels JD, Meis J, Sturm N. et al. Prevention of invasive ventilation (PRiVENT)—a prospective, mixed-methods interventional, multicentre study with a parallel comparison group: study protocol. BMC Health Services Research 2023; 23: 305
• 23 Keller S, Forstner J, Weis A. et al. Interprofessionelle Weaning-Boards und Weaning-Konsile für Langzeitbeatmungspatient*innen: Eine qualitative Studie zum wahrgenommenen Potenzial für die Patientenversorgung. Pneumologie 2023;
• 24 Litke N, Weis A, Koetsenruijter J. et al. Building resilience in German primary care practices: a qualitative study. BMC Primary Care 2022; 23: 221
• 25 Senft JD, Fleischhauer T, Frasch J. et al. Primary care disease management for venous leg ulceration-study protocol for the Ulcus Cruris Care [UCC] randomized controlled trial (DRKS00026126). Trials 2022; 23: 60
• 26 Lawson DO, Puljak L, Pieper D. et al. Reporting of methodological studies in health research: a protocol for the development of the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist (MISTIC. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e040478
• 27 Khalil H, Munn Z. Guidance on conducting methodological studies – an overview. Current Opinion in Epidemiology and Public Health. 2023 2.
• 28 Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N. et al. Thematic Analysis. In: Liamputtong P, Hrsg. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019: 843-860
• 29 Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E. et al. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2013; 13: 117
• 30 Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. [2nd publ.]. Aufl. Chicago [u. a.]: Univ. of Chicago Pr.; 2011
• 31 Gravois T, Rosenfield S, Greenberg B. Establishing reliability for coding implementation concerns of school-based teams from audiotapes. Evaluation review 1992; 16: 562-569
• 32 Markle DT, West RE, Rich PJ. Beyond transcription: technology, change, and refinement of method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative. Social Research 2011; 12
• 33 Nevedal AL, Reardon CM, Opra Widerquist MA. et al. Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Implementation Science 2021; 16: 67
• 34 Suchman L, Omoluabi E, Kramer J. et al. Analyzing fast and slow: Combining traditional and rapid qualitative analysis to meet multiple objectives of a complex transnational study. Front Sociol 2023; 8: 961202
• 35 Siiman LA, Rannastu-Avalos M, Pöysä-Tarhonen J. et al. Opportunities and challenges for AI-assisted qualitative data analysis: An example from collaborative problem-solving discourse data. In: Huang Y-M, Rocha T eds, Innovative technologies and learning. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2023: 87-96
• 36 Morgan DL. Exploring the use of artificial intelligence for qualitative data analysis: The case of ChatGPT. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2023; 22 16094069231211248
• 37 Hamilton L, Elliott D, Quick A. et al. Exploring the use of AI in qualitative analysis: A comparative study of guaranteed income data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2023; 22 16094069231201504
• 38 Anis S, French JA. Efficient, explicatory, and equitable: Why qualitative researchers should embrace AI, but cautiously. Business & Society 2023; 62: 1139-1144