Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

A protocol for the comparison of telephone and in-person interview modalities: duration, richness, and costs in the context of exploring determinants of equitable access to community health services in Meru, Kenya

Luke N Allen, Sarah Karanja, Malebogo Tlhajoane, John Tlhakanelo, David Macleod, Andrew Bastawrous
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.04.24303701
Luke N Allen
1Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: luke.allen{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Sarah Karanja
2Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Malebogo Tlhajoane
1Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Tlhakanelo
4Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Macleod
5Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and International Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Bastawrous
1Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Our research team is conducting phenomenological interviews with people who have not been able to access health services in Meru County, Kenya, aiming to explore the barriers they face and their perceptions of how we could modify our community outreach services to improve accessibility. We plan to conduct an embedded study that compares in-person and telephone interview modalities in terms of the richness of the data and the resources required for each modality.

Methods/Design This is a qualitative mode comparison study, embedded within a broader project to understand and address the issues that lead to inequitable access to local outreach clinics in Kenya. We will recruit at least 40 people who have been referred to local services but who have not been able to attend. We will conduct in-person interviews with half of these people, and telephone interviews with the other half. We will use random numbers to determine the modality that is used for each participant. All interviews will be conducted in the same month by a team of six research assistants who will use the same topic guide and analytic matrix for each interview. For all interviews conducted in each mode we will record and compare the mean duration; mean number of themes reported by each participant; total number of themes reported; interviewer rating of perceived richness; interviewer rating of perceived ease of building rapport; number of days taken by the team to complete all interviews; and all costs associated with conducting the interviews.

Discussion The findings will help us to weigh up the relative strengths and weaknesses of each modality for our research context. Given that we are exploring a focused research question in a fairly homogenous population, we anticipate that there may not be a meaningful difference in the number of themes reported.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (using the UKs Official Development Assistance (ODA) Funding) and Wellcome [215633/Z/19/Z] under the NIHR-Wellcome Partnership for Global Health Research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Wellcome, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was granted ethical approval by the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) scientific and ethics review unit on November 30th 2022, NACOSTI (National Commission For Science, Technology & Innovation) on 12th January 2023, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethics committee on 5th May 2023.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Declarations

  • Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests.

  • Funding: This study is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (using the UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) Funding) and Wellcome [215633/Z/19/Z] under the NIHR-Wellcome Partnership for Global Health Research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Wellcome, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Data Availability

Data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted March 04, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A protocol for the comparison of telephone and in-person interview modalities: duration, richness, and costs in the context of exploring determinants of equitable access to community health services in Meru, Kenya
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
A protocol for the comparison of telephone and in-person interview modalities: duration, richness, and costs in the context of exploring determinants of equitable access to community health services in Meru, Kenya
Luke N Allen, Sarah Karanja, Malebogo Tlhajoane, John Tlhakanelo, David Macleod, Andrew Bastawrous
medRxiv 2024.03.04.24303701; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.04.24303701
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A protocol for the comparison of telephone and in-person interview modalities: duration, richness, and costs in the context of exploring determinants of equitable access to community health services in Meru, Kenya
Luke N Allen, Sarah Karanja, Malebogo Tlhajoane, John Tlhakanelo, David Macleod, Andrew Bastawrous
medRxiv 2024.03.04.24303701; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.04.24303701

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)