1. bookVolume 8 (2021): Edizione 1 (January 2021)
Dettagli della rivista
License
Formato
Rivista
eISSN
2055-3390
Prima pubblicazione
22 Dec 2017
Frequenza di pubblicazione
1 volta all'anno
Lingue
Inglese
access type Accesso libero

Seeing the bigger picture: Qualitative research in the Zoom® age

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2021
Volume & Edizione: Volume 8 (2021) - Edizione 1 (January 2021)
Pagine: 141 - 144
Dettagli della rivista
License
Formato
Rivista
eISSN
2055-3390
Prima pubblicazione
22 Dec 2017
Frequenza di pubblicazione
1 volta all'anno
Lingue
Inglese
Abstract

Participants in clinical trials for new haemophilia treatments are routinely asked to complete quality of life (QoL) questionnaires using validated and disease-specific instruments. Yet too often in clinical research we know very little about the life stories of individuals, making it difficult to know how they have been affected by a new therapy and what exactly has changed for the better – or for the worse. In my own research, I wanted to understand the differences that new treatments are really making to people's everyday lives. While traditional QoL instruments can be helpful, using a qualitative approach that involves speaking directly with people with haemophilia (PwH) and their family members has enabled me find out what has really been going on their lives, including impacts on the wider family. The Covid pandemic and the need to maintain social distancing changed the way in which my research has been carried out, but in fact provided an opportunity to see an even bigger picture. I believe that using videoconferencing platforms to conduct interviews and focus groups has both allowed me to see more of the world in which the participants live and has enabled participants to be more relaxed and open in their conversations, resulting in a potentially richer dataset. While this approach to qualitative QoL research should not replace interviews and focus groups, the use of videoconferencing should be considered as another methodology researchers can and should use to enable them to glean the richest data possible. Qualitative interviews offer an important complementary addition to the validated QoL measures used in clinical trials, enabling us to hear more about where improvements have occurred, where further improvements can be made, and the real-life impact of a new treatment for PwH and their families.

Keywords

Qualitative research provides an opportunity to understand more about the real-life impact of new treatments for people with haemophilia – and using videoconferencing may enable the gathering of even richer data

© Shutterstock

As a research nurse based at a comprehensive care centre in the United Kingdom, I’ve been involved in clinical research in haemophilia for about nine years. Much of this has involved people with haemophilia (PwH) who are taking part in trials of novel therapies. Participants in such trials are routinely asked to complete quality of life (QoL) questionnaires for regulatory purposes using instruments such as the EQ-5D, Haemo-Qol and, more recently, PROBE. Results using these instruments are often positive but can be poorly or inadequately reported. Consequently, we rarely know what effect any stated improvement means to individual people.

The World Health Organization defines quality of life as “individuals' perceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns” [1]. As such, quality of life refers to subjective evaluations that are embedded in cultural, social and environmental contexts and norms.

Yet too often in clinical research we know very little about the life stories of individuals, making it difficult to know how they have been affected by a new therapy and what exactly has changed for the better – or, indeed, for the worse. This prompted me to consider a qualitative research approach when I decided to pursue a PhD by published works. I wanted to understand the differences that new treatments were really making to people's everyday lives.

Traditional QoL instruments can be helpful and sufficiently sensitive to describe changes in an individual's experiences of a disease or condition, especially if administered when they attend their care centre for clinical visits. There are, however, some inherent flaws in their design and application which can mean they can be inaccurate or misleading [2,3]. There is also a tendency to lose the individual in the aggregated scores. Many tools also focus on the presence or severity of the functional aspects of a condition but fail to take account societal attitudes, or issues of healthcare access, which may have a deeper impact on the lives of PwH [4]. It has been suggested that respondent-generated tools could help overcome this and also enable the capture of data on what really matters to individuals in terms of their QoL [5].

Rather than relying on these traditional QoL assessment tools, the research projects on which my PhD is based have involved speaking with PwH and their family members directly [6,7,8,9]. The aim has been to find out what has really been going on in their lives – what their thought processes were when they decided to go into a clinical trial, why they remained in that trial, what they gained from it, what improvements did it make to their lives, whether it had it made life worse in any way, and whether or not their expectations had been met. I’m interested to know both what has gone well and what hasn’t gone as well as it might have done. The very act of listening to an individual narrative of lived experience has multiple benefits including increasing our understanding of a given patient group [10]. In the context of haemophilia care, it acknowledges the voices and experiences of PwH as they navigate a changing treatment landscape and enables them to be heard. And it allows us, as caregivers, to empathise – a process associated with improved patient outcomes [8,11,12].

My research has used a mixed methods approach that includes both focus groups and individual interviews. These different approaches to collecting qualitative data offer different benefits, but ultimately work together to build a rich picture [13,14]. An individual interview offers the opportunity to really focus, explore and probe each element of that person's story, while in a focus group participants will bounce off one another, the tale of one person's experience bringing up an idea with someone else. Within a focus group there is always a risk that one individual will be more vocal than the others. The focus groups in my studies have been small (five participants at most), making it easier to ensure that quieter participants join the conversation. It is also easier to avoid ‘groupthink’, and to employ strategies such as playing devil's advocate [15].

Those in clinical practice know that haemophilia and its management impacts both the affected individual as well as their wider family, and any change in QoL, whether for better or worse, will also affect others within the family. So in my research I always knew that it would be important to interview family members alongside those who have participated in clinical trials. While the ultimate decisions around joining a gene therapy trial may rest with the individual, I wanted to understand their decision-making process and what part their family played in it. I have heard, for instance, from some wives and partners of PwH who have had gene therapy that while they would never have disagreed with their partner's decision they had concerns about the process which they felt unable to discuss with them. It is important for us to hear and understand what impact any decision has on a family because as health care professionals we may not ordinarily see the wives, children and/or parents of the individuals we treat. But my research gives the opportunity to see and understand more about their lives and experiences – what is going on within the family, whether there are concerns among their children about their condition, what the family as a whole understands about it. There is a whole family behind each individual who walks through the door of the haemophilia centre and being able to hear from them enables us to see more of the bigger picture.

The Covid pandemic and the need to maintain social distancing practices has changed the way everyone in healthcare has had to work. It has also changed the way in which research has been carried out – the traditional methods of face-to-face interviews and large focus groups have had to be curtailed. Despite this, in some ways, these enforced changes have allowed me to see a bigger picture than I might have expected. My original plan had been to visit people's homes to interview them, or to find a venue where we could hold a conversation or conduct a focus group. When the pandemic struck, I had to radically rethink what was possible – and like so many others began using videoconferencing platforms. What could have been seen as a second-best option has in fact, I believe, given a richer data set as I’ve been able to see more of the world in which the participants live. Because I used a videoconferencing platform to carry out the interviews and focus groups, I have interviewed people in their kitchens while they were cooking or eating their tea; I have interviewed people cosied up for the evening in their loungewear; I have seen how they interact with other members of their family as they’ve momentarily stepped into the interview. Most importantly, though, I think they have been more relaxed in their conversations. The fact that there has been a computer screen between them and me seems to have somehow enabled them to be more open – perhaps because although I was there, I was not completely in their space.

Discussions about remote interviewing and the use of videoconferencing platforms for qualitative interview studies are increasing [16,17,18], and as we come out of the pandemic I think this is a trend that is only likely to increase. Videoconferencing is not an infallible technique – technical issues can occur, sound can drop out as interviewees move away from the microphone, or there can be issues with internet connections. Awareness of these issues, though, mean they can be mitigated if they occur.

My approach to analysing the study data has remained the same as it would have been if I had interviewed research participants in person. After each interview or focus group, I wrote up my field notes, identifying elements of the interview that struck me as immediately important, interesting or relevant, as well as personal comments about how I felt at the time or how some of the comments made me feel. While the notes were never formally analysed, they have provided a useful tool and guide when analysing the interviews, providing important contextual reminders. All of the interviews and focus group recordings have been transcribed, and I have gone through the transcripts line by line to identify common themes. I have often gone back to the recordings too, to listen to what an individual has said and the way in which it has been said. I want to know if a particular issue is raised by just one person, or whether it is something that is more commonly experienced. And if it is more commonly experienced, I want to know how people are describing it, whether they are describing it in the same way or differently. It is an ongoing and iterative process: having heard something in an earlier interview or focus group I have been able to introduce it into later groups so that it can be further explored. Again, this analysis helps to build a bigger picture.

Although familiarising myself with the technology and gaining proficiency in its use was initially a challenge, I personally feel there are few, if any, downsides to using videoconferencing platforms to conduct qualitative research: indeed, from what I have seen to date their use has been a positive experience. Face-to-face interviews and focus groups will always remain the dominant methodologies, but if we are to glean the richest data possible then researchers should use all available methodologies.

With respect to new treatments for haemophilia, I now believe that qualitative interviews offer an important complementary addition to the validated QoL measures used in clinical trials and that, as such, both regulatory authorities and the pharmaceutical companies should seek to incorporate them into future clinical studies. Without them, we may simply miss hearing about the improvements that have occurred and, more importantly, where further improvements can be made.

Undertaking this research has certainly given me a new view of my own role. Clinical research is very process-driven and too often researchers remain unaware of the real-life impact of a new treatment for PwH and their families. Qualitative interview-based research enables us to see and understand this – and it can be a joyous and rewarding experience.

Qualitative research provides an opportunity to understand more about the real-life impact of new treatments for people with haemophilia – and using videoconferencing may enable the gathering of even richer data© Shutterstock
Qualitative research provides an opportunity to understand more about the real-life impact of new treatments for people with haemophilia – and using videoconferencing may enable the gathering of even richer data© Shutterstock

World Health Organization. WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life. Available at https://www.who.int/toolkits/whoqol (accessed December 2021). World Health Organization WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life Available at https://www.who.int/toolkits/whoqol (accessed December 2021). Search in Google Scholar

Osborne TR, Ramsenthaler C, Siegert RJ, et al. What issues matter most to people with multiple myeloma and how well are we measuring them? A systematic review of quality of life tools. Eur J Haematol 2012; 89: 437–457 doi:10.1111/ejh.12012. OsborneTR RamsenthalerC SiegertRJ What issues matter most to people with multiple myeloma and how well are we measuring them? A systematic review of quality of life tools Eur J Haematol 2012 89 437 457 10.1111/ejh.12012 22985406 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Koot HM. The study of quality of life: concepts and methods. In: Koot HM., Wallender JL eds. Quality of Life in Child and Adolescent Illness. New York, Taylor and Francois Inc; 2001:3–21. KootHM The study of quality of life: concepts and methods In: KootHM. WallenderJL eds. Quality of Life in Child and Adolescent Illness New York Taylor and Francois Inc 2001 3 21 Search in Google Scholar

Parens E, Asch A. Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: Reflections and recommendations. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2003;9(1):40–47 doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.10056. ParensE AschA Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: Reflections and recommendations Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 2003 9 1 40 47 doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.10056. 10.1002/mrdd.1005612587137 Search in Google Scholar

Macduff C. Respondent-generated quality of life measures: useful tools for nursing or more fool's gold? J Adv Nurs 2000; 32(2): 375–382 doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01486.x. MacduffC Respondent-generated quality of life measures: useful tools for nursing or more fool's gold? J Adv Nurs 2000 32 2 375 382 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01486.x 10964185 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Fletcher S, Jenner K, Holland M, Khair K. The lived experience of a novel disruptive therapy in a group of men and boys with haemophilia A with inhibitors: Emi & Me. Health Expect. 2021;1–12. doi:10.1111/hex.13404. FletcherS JennerK HollandM KhairK The lived experience of a novel disruptive therapy in a group of men and boys with haemophilia A with inhibitors: Emi & Me Health Expect. 2021 1 12 10.1111/hex.13404 884924634878209 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Fletcher S, Jenner K, Holland M, Chaplin S, Khair K. An exploration of why men with severe haemophilia might not want gene therapy: The exigency study. Haemophilia 2021;27:760–768. doi: 10.1111/hae.14378. FletcherS JennerK HollandM ChaplinS KhairK An exploration of why men with severe haemophilia might not want gene therapy: The exigency study Haemophilia 2021 27 760 768 10.1111/hae.14378 34265145 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Khair K, Steadman L, Chaplin S, Holland M, Jenner K, Fletcher S. Parental perspectives on gene therapy for children with haemophilia: the Exigency study. Haemophilia 2020; 27(1): 120–128. doi: 10.1111/hae.14188. KhairK SteadmanL ChaplinS HollandM JennerK FletcherS Parental perspectives on gene therapy for children with haemophilia: the Exigency study Haemophilia 2020 27 1 120 128 10.1111/hae.14188 33216422 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Fletcher S, Jenner K, Pembroke L, Holland M, Khair K. The experience of people with haemophilia undergoing gene therapy in a clinical trial setting: Regaining Control, an Exigency Study (manuscript submitted for publication, 2021). FletcherS JennerK PembrokeL HollandM KhairK The experience of people with haemophilia undergoing gene therapy in a clinical trial setting: Regaining Control, an Exigency Study (manuscript submitted for publication, 2021) 10.1186/s13023-022-02256-2898174735379267 Search in Google Scholar

Charon R. Narrative medicine: a model for empathy, reflection, profession, and trust. JAMA 2001; 286(15): 1897–902. doi:10.1001/jama.286.15.1897. CharonR Narrative medicine: a model for empathy, reflection, profession, and trust JAMA 2001 286 15 1897 902 10.1001/jama.286.15.1897 11597295 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Hojat M, Louis DZ, Markham FW, Wender R, Rabinowitz C, Gonnella JS. Physicians' empathy and clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. Acad Med 2011; 86(3): 359–64. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182086fe1. HojatM LouisDZ MarkhamFW WenderR RabinowitzC GonnellaJS Physicians' empathy and clinical outcomes for diabetic patients Acad Med 2011 86 3 359 64 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182086fe1 21248604 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Attar HS, Chandramani S. Impact of physician empathy on migraine disability and migraineur compliance. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2012; 15(Suppl 1): S89–94. doi:10.4103/0972-2327.100025 AttarHS ChandramaniS Impact of physician empathy on migraine disability and migraineur compliance Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2012 15 Suppl 1 S89 94 10.4103/0972-2327.100025344422023024571 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Carey MA, Smith MW. Capturing the group effect in focus groups: a special concern in analysis. Qualitative Health Research 1994; 4(1): 123–127. doi.10.1177/104973239400400108 CareyMA SmithMW Capturing the group effect in focus groups: a special concern in analysis Qualitative Health Research 1994 4 1 123 127 10.1177/104973239400400108 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Kaplowitz MD, Hoehn JP. Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecological Economics 2001; 36(2): 237–247 doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00226-3. KaplowitzMD HoehnJP Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecological Economics 2001 36 2 237 247 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00226-3 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

MacDougall C, Baum F. The devil's advocate: a strategy to avoid groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qualitative Health Research 1997; 7 (4): 532–541. doi10.1177/104973239700700407. MacDougallC BaumF The devil's advocate: a strategy to avoid groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups Qualitative Health Research 1997 7 4 532 541 10.1177/104973239700700407 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Khair K, Phillott A, Loran C, Pollard D, Forrester C, Alavian S, Hook S. HaemophiliaLIVE: an ethnographic study on the impact of haemophilia on daily life. J Haem Pract 2014;1(3): 14–20. doi: 10.17225/jhp.00030. KhairK PhillottA LoranC PollardD ForresterC AlavianS HookS HaemophiliaLIVE: an ethnographic study on the impact of haemophilia on daily life J Haem Pract 2014 1 3 14 20 10.17225/jhp.00030 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Archibald MM, Ambagtsheer RC, Casey MG, Lawless M. Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2019; 18: 1–8. doi:10.1177/1609406919874596. ArchibaldMM AmbagtsheerRC CaseyMG LawlessM Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2019 18 1 8 10.1177/1609406919874596 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Gray LM, Wong-Wylie G, Rempel GR, Cook K. Expanding qualitative research interviewing strategies: Zoom video communications. The Qualitative Report 2020; 25(5): 1292–1301. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4212. GrayLM Wong-WylieG RempelGR CookK Expanding qualitative research interviewing strategies: Zoom video communications The Qualitative Report 2020 25 5 1292 1301 10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4212 Apri DOISearch in Google Scholar

Articoli consigliati da Trend MD

Pianifica la tua conferenza remota con Sciendo