What the textbooks don’t teach about the reality of running a digitally enabled health study: a phenomenological interview study

Abstract

Background Most studies do not produce their intended outcomes on time or within budget. However, it is challenging to identify the facilitators and barriers to successful study management when the “behind the scenes action” of especially digitally enabled health research studies are akin to a black box. Therefore, it is necessary to explore first-hand experience of the facilitators and barriers to managing digitally enabled health studies. The goal of such studies is to produce new knowledge and/or develop tools that can be translated to real-world benefits for the health and care sector, individuals, and other stakeholders. These studies now exist in a time that encourages collaborative research activities with interdisciplinary research partnerships, industry collaboration, end-user involvement and insights for policy. These expectations require teams with different work cultures, methodologies, technologies, and approaches to work together, resulting in significant benefits but also challenges.

Objectives To explore the relationship between the dynamics and needs of research teams and the technology used to manage digitally enabled studies through the experience of those who worked on such studies.

Methods We used an interpretive phenomenological approach to explore research team members’ experiences and perceptions of study management in the field of digitally enabled health research. We interviewed 15 research team members from eight studies. A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore concepts related to study activity management, team dynamics, resources and technologies used to manage research activities, and reflections of personal experiences. An adductive thematic analysis was performed on the transcripts.

Results Five main themes were identified: 1) Project Team, 2) Study management, which included management technologies, 3) Study plan, 4) Intervention, 5) Participants. This paper focuses on the first two main themes. Subthemes included: Roles and responsibilities, Methods, Changes, Challenges and solutions and Expectations vs. reality. Sub-themes were applicable to all main themes. Therefore, results were presented as knowledge gained from the interaction between sub-themes within each theme, i.e. referred to as“comprehensive insights” in the results section of this paper.

Conclusion This interview study provides new knowledge about the realities of working in collaborative, digitally enabled health research studies and demonstrates several opportunities for improved understanding of study management. More realistic and thorough understanding of the complex system in which digitally enabled health research exists can be applied to better prepare experienced researchers and newly graduated students entering the field, as well as improve existing strategies for management.