Use of Rapid Assessment Procedures when analyzing qualitative data in pharmacy research
Abstract
Qualitative research analytics and methodology are a useful part of many research projects. However, qualitative data analysis may be time intensive causing delays in results. This is especially problematic in time-sensitive projects where there an urgent need for results and a rapidly evolving situation being studied, such as during health crisis or early stages of project implementation. An emerging body of literature around the use of Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP) suggests that this method of qualitative assessment provides more efficient coding and categorizing of data without comprising rigor. The objectives of this manuscript are to: 1) describe how RAP can be used in pragmatic healthcare research studies and 2) provide an example of when RAP was applied to a qualitative research study in the healthcare setting. RAP includes 5 core features: 1) use in combination with quantitative outcomes or process data (mixed methods approach), 2) quick timeline from start to finish (weeks to months), 3) population of interest participation in planning and implementing the research, 4) team approach to research process, and 5) iterative cycle of data collection and analysis. Use of RAP provides key stakeholders and decision makers the ability to generate solutions to problems faster than ever before without compromising rigor, a method needed now more than ever. The progression of healthcare and clinical management is moving at an unprecedented rate, and RAP allows researchers to stay ahead by providing quicker results for better outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Pharmacy practice research has seen a steady increase in published qualitative studies in the last two decades.
“Pharmacy practice research has seen a steady increase in published qualitative studies in the last two decades. 9,10”
From Research and scholarly methods: Thematic analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [10]
Cites
Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?
Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019 · Cited by 1,984 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Research and scholarly methods: Thematic analysis
Cernasev, A., & Axon, D. R. (2023) · JACCP: Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy · doi:10.1002/jac5.1817 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Mace, R. A., Greenberg, J., Lemaster, N., Duarte, B., Penn, T., Kanaya, M., Doorley, J. D., Burris, J. L., Jacobs, C. A., & Vranceanu, A.-M. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/34654 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“We used rapid assessment procedures to analyze the focus group data, consistent with established qualitative frameworks [59-61].”
Method
- Authors
- Renfro, C. P., Rome, Z., Gatwood, J., & Hohmeier, K. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Tennessee Health Science Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hohmeier, Kenneth C.
- Venue
- Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2249-2253
- ISSN
- 1551-7411 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3167408649
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7
- FWCI
- 7.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- rapid assessment procedures, qualitative data analysis, pharmacy research, mixed methods, stakeholder engagement, research efficiency
- MeSH terms
- Pharmacy Research, Health Services Research, Humans, Research Design, Research Personnel, Qualitative Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review