ABSTRACT
Ziel dieses Beitrags ist, unterschiedliche qualitative Erhebungsformen (Präsenz-, Telefon- und Videotelefonie-Interviews) für die Forschung mit vulnerablen Gruppen methodologisch zu reflektieren. Im Beitrag adressieren wir die Leitfrage, wie sich Personen, die von starker Angst oder Angsterkrankungen betroffen sind, in qualitative Forschungsprojekte einbinden lassen und welche Vorteile und Herausforderungen mit den unterschiedlichen (analogen und digitalen) Erhebungsformen verbunden sind. Die Basis dafür bilden 12 qualitative Leitfadeninterviews (KRUSE 2015), die im Rahmen des Forschungsprojektes "Angstfrei mobil" während der Covid-19-Pandemie in den unterschiedlichen Modi durchgeführt wurden. Der Vergleich der Erhebungsformen erfolgt in Hinblick auf Vorabsprache, Gesprächsführung, Verzerrungen und Validität sowie Darstellungstiefe und Zeit- und Dokumentationsaufwand. Die jeweiligen Vorteile und Herausforderungen werden sowohl für die interviewten als auch für die interviewenden Personen dargestellt. Wir beschreiben darüber hinaus, welche forschungsethischen Maßnahmen bei Interviewplanung, Rekrutierung und Kommunikation zum Schutz vulnerabler Zielgruppen zu treffen sind und geben konkrete Empfehlungen für die Durchführung von qualitativen Interviews mit Menschen, die von Angsterkrankungen betroffen sind.Alternate :Our aim in this article is to methodologically reflect on different qualitative forms of face-to-face, telephone, and video interviews for research with vulnerable groups. We address the key question of how people with anxiety disorders can be involved in qualitative research projects and what advantages and challenges are associated with the different (analogue and digital) forms of data collection. The basis for the comparison is formed by 12 semi-structured interviews (KRUSE, 2015), which were carried out in different modes as part of the research project "Mobility Without Fear" during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our comparison of the qualitative instruments is carried out with regard to planning interviews, interview practice, distortions, and validity and in terms of depth of content (from superficial to profound) and time and documentation efforts. Advantages and challenges are presented for both the interviewees and the interviewers. Moreover, we describe research-ethical considerations, which are to be taken in the course of interview planning, recruiting, and communicating, in order to protect vulnerable target groups, and we give specific recommendations for conducting qualitative interviews with people affected by anxiety disorders.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The process of enrolling participants is an important component and often a time-consuming step in scientific research projects. Due to different financial, organisational and ethical framework conditions, the enrolment of participants is often a challenge. In this article, we report our experiences of enrolling patients in clinical trials made in the project "Psycho-oncological care of cancer patients with a migration background - a mixed methods study" (POM). METHODS: Participants were recruited through outpatient haemato-oncology practices. Patients and relatives were primarily made aware of the project by the treating physicians and recruited to participate in qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Nine patients and relatives were interviewed nationwide in individual qualitative interviews. In addition to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were other patient enrolment challenges. In many cases, participation was refused. The reasons included: "not interested", the use of the terms "psycho-oncology" or "person with a migration background", family denying permission to participate, no face-to-face interview due to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as too much emotional distress and deterioration of health after prior consent. DISCUSSION: Enrolling study participants from vulnerable groups for a sensitive topic such as psycho-oncology entails multiple challenges. In order to achieve successful study inclusion, regular telephone and written exchanges with the respective practice staff proved to be helpful, allowing an overview of challenges to be gained and study inclusion to be evaluated and adjusted in a timely manner. CONCLUSION: In research projects with vulnerable groups and on sensitive topics, both a target-group-specific, sensitive approach in plain language (layman's terms) and regular consultations with the persons responsible for study inclusion in care facilities should take place in order to adapt the existing procedure during the study inclusion process, if necessary.