Conectar
To discuss the dyadic and triadic interviewing techniques as distinct approaches to data collection in qualitative research.
Methodological/methodical discussion.
Underpinned by a layered theoretical basis involving interpretivism, social constructivism and symbolic interactionism, dyadic and triadic interviewing approaches represent a tapestry that seeks to illuminate not only what participants think at the individual level, but also how they think together to generate shared, nuanced meanings. Key methodical considerations include participant recruitment and selection to form the dyads or triads, ethical issues, navigating power dynamics, determining saturation at the dyad or triad level and shifting the unit of analysis from the individual level to the dyad or triad level. Notable challenges to using these approaches include logistical complexity, ethical risks and the great need for skilled moderation.
Dyadic and triadic interviewing techniques occupy a vital methodological niche in qualitative studies, particularly within the contexts of health and social care research where relational dynamics and collaborative decision-making are central. By foregrounding co-constructed narratives and real-time interactions, dyadic and triadic interviewing techniques illuminate the interplay of individual agency, power asymmetries and cultural norms, offering insights that transcend the limitations of individual interviews or focus groups.
The increasing complexity of care, treatment pathways, recovery and family-centered decision making warrants engagement beyond individual interviews. Dyadic and triadic interview techniques facilitate this by combining the in-depth benefit of individual interviews and shared interpretations of focus group discussions to capture meanings and experiences.
This methodological/methodical discussion offers clarity to employing dyadic or triadic interviewing approaches to improve their uptake in health and social care research.
Not applicable.
No patient or public contribution.
To explore key stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of end-of-life communication in acute care settings.
A qualitative descriptive study.
Data were collected from 4 May to 31 October 2023. Patients with terminal illness, family caregivers and healthcare providers were recruited from two Chinese hospitals via purposive sampling. Individual interviews were conducted with patients and family caregivers, whereas healthcare providers participated in focus group discussions. Thematic analysis was conducted.
Nineteen patients, 22 family caregivers and 25 healthcare providers participated. Five themes emerged: (1) protective end-of-life communication, characterised by dominant family involvement, truth concealment and restricted end-of-life topics; (2) open end-of-life communication, characterised by dominant patient involvement, truth disclosure and diverse end-of-life topics; (3) patient-related factors, including comfort level in talking about end-of-life, burden and treatment engagement; (4) family-related factors, including comfort, burden, expectations, values and trust in healthcare providers and (5) healthcare provider-related factors, including comfort, time availability and clinical priorities, end-of-life communication awareness and skills and end-of-life care knowledge.
End-of-life communication in Chinese acute care settings oscillates between protective and open approaches, influenced by several individual factors.
Healthcare providers must overcome stereotypes rooted in cultural values and adopt a proactive approach to end-of-life communication. Enhanced training and institutional procedures are needed to improve end-of-life communication in acute care settings.
The study provides nuanced insights into end-of-life communication dynamics in Chinese acute care settings, complementing global evidence. Coexisting protective and open communication approaches highlight the need for context-sensitive approaches to end-of-life communication. Multifocal interventions addressing patient-, family- and healthcare provider-related factors are warranted.
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.
No patient or public contribution was involved in the design or conduct of the study.
FreshRSS 