Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Gesundheitswesen
DOI: 10.1055/a-2512-8004
Original Article

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

Abschätzung des Zeitaufwands qualitativer Datenanalyse: Eine vergleichende methodologische Studie zur Kodierung von Interviews in der Versorgungsforschung
Charlotte Ullrich 
1   Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany
2   Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg
,
Michel Wensing
1   Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany
2   Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg
,
Nadja Klafke
1   Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany
2   Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg
,
Thomas Fleischhauer
1   Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany
2   Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg
,
Sabrina Brinkmöller
1   Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany
2   Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg
,
Regina Poß-Doering
1   Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany
2   Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg
,
Christine Arnold
3   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

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

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 12 July 2024

Accepted after revision: 13 December 2024

Article published online:
14 April 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • 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
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Vindrola-Padros C, Johnson GA. Rapid techniques in qualitative research: A critical review of the literature. Qualitative Health Research 2020; 30: 1596-1604
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Watkins D. Rapid and Rigorous qualitative data analysis: The “RADaR” Technique for Applied Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2017; 16 160940691771213
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. Bmj 2000; 320: 114-116
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Krueger RAK, Casey MA. Focus Groups. A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Eaton K, Stritzke W, Ohan J. Using scribes in qualitative research as an alternative to transcription. Qualitative Report 2019; 24: 586-605
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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;
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Khalil H, Munn Z. Guidance on conducting methodological studies – an overview. Current Opinion in Epidemiology and Public Health. 2023 2.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. [2nd publ.]. Aufl. Chicago [u. a.]: Univ. of Chicago Pr.; 2011
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Markle DT, West RE, Rich PJ. Beyond transcription: technology, change, and refinement of method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative. Social Research 2011; 12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Anis S, French JA. Efficient, explicatory, and equitable: Why qualitative researchers should embrace AI, but cautiously. Business & Society 2023; 62: 1139-1144
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar