The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in healthcare organisation and delivery
Open accessAbstract
Background: The ability to capture the complexities of healthcare practices and the quick turnaround of findings make rapid ethnographies appealing to the healthcare sector, where changing organisational climates and priorities require actionable findings at strategic time points. Despite methodological advancement, there continue to be challenges in the implementation of rapid ethnographies concerning sampling, the interpretation of findings and management of field research. The purpose of this review was to explore the benefits and challenges of using rapid ethnographies to inform healthcare organisation and delivery and identify areas that require improvement. Methods: This was a systematic review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the articles. We developed the search strategy using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Settingframework and searched for peer-reviewed articles in MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, Web of Science and ProQuest Central. We included articles that reported findings from rapid ethnographies in healthcare contexts or addressing issues related to health service use. Results: 26 articles were included in the review. We found an increase in the use of rapid ethnographies in the last 2‰years. We found variability in terminology and developed a typology to clarify conceptual differences. The studies generated findings that could be used to inform policy and practice. The main limitations of the studies were: the poor quality of reporting of study designs, mainly data analysis methods, and lack of reflexivity. Conclusions: Rapid ethnographies have the potential to generate findings that can inform changes in healthcare practices in a timely manner, but greater attention needs to be paid to the reflexive interpretation of findings and the description of research methods. Trial registration number: CRD42017065874.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 · Cited by 10,865
Pluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440 · Cited by 1,363
Pace, R., Pluye, P., Bartlett, G., Macaulay, A. C., Salsberg, J., Jagosh, J., & Seller, R. (2012) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002 · Cited by 1,331
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 · Cited by 1,063
A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed
Crowe, M., & Sheppard, L. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.008 · Cited by 261
Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., Guappone, K. P., Dykstra, R. H., Richardson, J., Wright, A., Carpenter, J., McMullen, C., Shapiro, M., Bunce, A., et al. (2012) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-6 · Cited by 103
Cited by
Nevedal, A. L., Reardon, C. M., Opra Widerquist, M. A., Jackson, G. L., Cutrona, S. L., White, B. S., & Damschroder, L. J. (2021) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01111-5 · Cited by 708
Taylor, B., Henshall, C., Kenyon, S., Litchfield, I., & Greenfield, S. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019993 · Cited by 659
Carrying Out Rapid Qualitative Research During a Pandemic: Emerging Lessons From COVID-19
Vindrola-Padros, C., Chisnall, G., Cooper, S., Dowrick, A., Djellouli, N., Symmons, S. M., Martin, S., Singleton, G., Vanderslott, S., Vera, N., et al. (2020) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732320951526 · Cited by 448
Self-citationSaunders, C. H., Sierpe, A., von Plessen, C., Kennedy, A. M., Leviton, L. C., Bernstein, S. L., Goldwag, J., King, J. R., Marx, C. M., Pogue, J. A., et al. (2023) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-074256 · Cited by 363
Lewinski, A. A., Crowley, M. J., Miller, C., Bosworth, H. B., Jackson, G. L., Steinhauser, K., White-Clark, C., McCant, F., & Zullig, L. L. (2021) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000001553 · Cited by 296
Metadata
- Authors
- Vindrola-Padros, C., & Vindrola-Padros, B.
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2017-12-20
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 321-330
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5415
- 2044-5423
- OpenAlex
- W2779260173
- Cited by
- 241
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 5.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in healthcare organisation and delivery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007226
- The paper
- Vindrola-Padros, C., & Vindrola-Padros, B. (2018). Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in healthcare organisation and delivery. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007226
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.