ABSTRACT
Context: Puerto Rico experienced four natural disasters in 4 years (2017-2021): Hurricanes Irma and Maria, thousands of earthquakes reaching 6.4 magnitude, and the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, our team sought to understand the impact of disaster aid distribution on poverty and economic inequality, and their relationship to the spread of COVID-19 across Puerto Rico. Rapid research was required to ensure we could collect perishable data within this ever-changing context. Challenges: Our mixed methods design relied on both secondary and primary data. Because analyses of the former were to inform where and how to collect the latter, timing was of the essence. The data sources identified were not readily available to the public, and thus required gaining access through direct requests to government agencies. The requests coincided with a transition between administrations after an election. This resulted in unexpected delays. Once in the field, the team had to balance the rapid nature of the research with the mindful work to avoid compounding traumas experienced by participants, heightened risk for re-traumatization and fatigue, the risk of COVID-19, the digital divide, and intermittent electrical and telecommunication services. Adaptations: In response to the delayed access to secondary data, we adjusted our research question. We continued to collect data as they became available, incorporating some immediately into analyses, and cleaning and storing others for future research opportunities. To overcome ongoing trauma challenges and prevent fatigue, we recruited and hired a large temporary team, including members of communities where we collected data. By recruiting participants and co-researchers at the same time and place, we both collapsed time between these activities and increased our team's contextual competency. To adapt to challenges presented by the pandemic, we created hybrid data collection procedures where some data were collected online, and some in person, while maintaining COVID-19 protections. We used similar adaptations for dissemination. Lessons: Rapid research needs to be agile. Working within a convergence framework to investigate wicked problems had the unexpected added benefit of providing our team with a variety of disciplinary approaches which proved helpful in adapting to the changing conditions in the field. In addition to the resourcefulness of a transdisciplinary team, it is important to be willing to pivot in response to changes and to collect data where and when you can. To increase participation, opportunities need to be designed with flexibility, mindful of competing demands faced by individuals willing to collaborate. Collecting and analyzing data iteratively and utilizing local resources can enable rapid research that is rigorous and yields rich data. Contributions: Our team applied the lessons learned to structure a rapid and iterative dissemination plan. We combined member-checking with community-level dissemination, enabling us to hone findings further before presenting to policy makers and media. Rapid research creates opportunities to make data-informed program and policy adjustments when they can be most impactful. Both the media and policy makers pay closer attention to research on current events. Hence, our recommendation is to do more rapid research! The more we do, the better we will get at it, and the more accustomed community leaders, policy makers, and program designers will become to using data to inform decisions.
ABSTRACT
This article presents reflections on the lessons learnt from developing and initiating a rapid research project in 4 weeks during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The article highlights the importance of selecting methods appropriate to rapid research, discusses the challenges of data collection in a shifting context, and the importance of the research team being prepared to cede some degree of control over the data collection process. To protect staff and patients and prevent the spread of COVID-19, general practice shifted to remote service delivery and consultations occurred via the telephone or online platforms. In the study, submissions were collected from those working in general practice to capture their experiences of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants could choose how to submit their narratives, with some preferring to be interviewed and others contributing self-recorded submissions. This article offers practical reflections in response to the challenges of carrying out rapid research during a pandemic, including the importance of constructing a research team which can respond to the demands of the study, as well as the benefits of an expedited ethical review process. The study highlighted the importance of selecting appropriate methods to facilitate the rapid collection of data. In particular, the authors reflect on the differences between participants' response to interviews, written submissions, and audio diaries. Open approaches to data collection were found to encourage participation and reflexivity and also generated rich narrative accounts. Rapid research has progressed our understanding of general practice's experience of the first year of COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Background: A rigorous approach is needed to inform rapid adaptation and optimisation of behavioral interventions in evolving public health contexts, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. This helps ensure that interventions are relevant, persuasive, and feasible while remaining evidence-based. This paper provides a set of iterative methods to rapidly adapt and optimize an intervention during implementation. These methods are demonstrated through the example of optimizing an effective online handwashing intervention called Germ Defense. Methods: Three revised versions of the intervention were rapidly optimized and launched within short timeframes of 1-2 months. Optimisations were informed by: regular stakeholder engagement; emerging scientific evidence, and changing government guidance; rapid qualitative research (telephone think-aloud interviews and open-text surveys), and analyses of usage data. All feedback was rapidly collated, using the Table of Changes method from the Person-Based Approach to prioritize potential optimisations in terms of their likely impact on behavior change. Written feedback from stakeholders on each new iteration of the intervention also informed specific optimisations of the content. Results: Working closely with clinical stakeholders ensured that the intervention was clinically accurate, for example, confirming that information about transmission and exposure was consistent with evidence. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors identified important clarifications to intervention content, such as whether Covid-19 can be transmitted via air as well as surfaces, and ensured that information about difficult behaviors (such as self-isolation) was supportive and feasible. Iterative updates were made in line with emerging evidence, including changes to the information about face-coverings and opening windows. Qualitative research provided insights into barriers to engaging with the intervention and target behaviors, with open-text surveys providing a useful supplement to detailed think-aloud interviews. Usage data helped identify common points of disengagement, which guided decisions about optimisations. The Table of Changes was modified to facilitate rapid collation and prioritization of multiple sources of feedback to inform optimisations. Engagement with PPI informed the optimisation process. Conclusions: Rapid optimisation methods of this kind may in future be used to help improve the speed and efficiency of adaptation, optimization, and implementation of interventions, in line with calls for more rapid, pragmatic health research methods.