Qualitative research that prioritizes the voice of individuals with cognitive impairment (CI) is critical to better understand the diversity and nuances of care experiences of this population. Yet, challenges to conducting qualitative studies, specifically semi-structured interviews, exist with individuals with CI. This manuscript describes the rapid qualitative approach used to design, conduct, and analyze dyad phone interviews with individuals with CI and their care partners. We also reflect on the benefits and challenges of using a rapid approach with this population and discuss recommendations for future research. Overall, these methods were successful in gathering data to answer research questions in an efficient and pragmatic way. Future recommendations include partnering with clinical content area experts who can provide guidance on all phases of the study, as well as utilizing rapid qualitative analysis methods to make research with individuals with CI more feasible for a wider range of researchers.
AverillJ. B. (2002). Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230201200611
2.
BartlettR.MilneR.CroucherR. (2019). Strategies to improve recruitment of people with dementia to research studies. Dementia (London), 18(7-8), 2494–2504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301217748503
3.
BartlettR.O’ConnorD. (2007). From personhood to citizenship: Broadening the lens for dementia practice and research. Journal of Aging Studies, 21(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2006.09.002
4.
BethellJ.CommissoE.RostadH. M.PutsM.BabineauJ.Grinbergs-SaullA.WightonM. B.HammelJ.DoyleE.NadeauS.McGiltonK. S. (2018). Patient engagement in research related to dementia: A scoping review. Dementia (London), 17(8), 944–975. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301218789292
5.
BeuscherL.GrandoV. T. (2009). Challenges in conducting qualitative research with persons with dementia. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 2(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.3928/19404921-20090101-04
6.
BlatchfordL.CookJ. (2022). Patient perspectives about mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review. Clinical Gerontologist, 45(3), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2020.1805536
7.
BorsonS.ScanlanJ. M.ChenP.GanguliM. (2003). The mini-cog as a screen for dementia: Validation in a population-based sample. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(10), 1451–1454. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51465.x
8.
BrownR.Cigarroa KennedyS.Carranco ChavezE.Dumeng-RodriguezJ.CullenD. (2025). Evaluation of a notes-based rapid qualitative analysis method to facilitate implementation. Implementation Science Communications, 6(1), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00709-w
9.
CaldwellK. (2014). Dyadic interviewing: A technique valuing interdependence in interviews with individuals with intellectual disabilities. Qualitative Research, 14(4), 488–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113490718
10.
CarlozziN. E.ShermanC. W.AngersK.BelangerM. P.AustinA. M.RyanK. A. (2018). Caring for an individual with mild cognitive impairment: A qualitative perspective of health-related quality of life from caregivers. Aging & Mental Health, 22(9), 1190–1198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1341468
11.
CottonQ.BlockL.BensonC.FrizA.ChelgrenB.StroikB.PlochE.BykovskyiA. G. (2021). Ethical and methodological considerations interviewing dementia caregivers. Innovation in Aging, 5(Supplement_1), 393–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab046.1531
12.
DeanK.JenkinsonC.WilcockG.WalkerZ. (2014). Exploring the experiences of people with mild cognitive impairment and their caregivers with particular reference to healthcare - a qualitative study. International Psychogeriatrics, 26(3), 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021300207X
13.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2012). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
FolderN.PowerE.RietdijkR.ChristensenI.TogherL.ParkerD. (2024). The effectiveness and characteristics of communication partner training programs for families of people with dementia: A systematic review. The Gerontologist, 64(4), Article gnad095. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnad095
HellstromI.NolanM.NordenfeltL.LundhU. (2007). Ethical and methodological issues in interviewing persons with dementia. Nursing Ethics, 14(5), 608–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733007080206
18.
KarlawishJ.CaryM. S.RubrightJ.TenhaveT. (2008). How redesigning AD clinical trials might increase study partners’ willingness to participate. Neurology, 71(23), 1883–1888. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000336652.05779.ea
19.
KenistonA.McBethL.AstikG.AuerbachA.BuschJ.KangelarisK. N.KulkarniS. A.LinkerA. S.SakumotoM.LeykumL.BurdenM. (2023). Practical applications of rapid qualitative analysis for operations, quality improvement, and research in dynamically changing hospital environments. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 49(2), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2022.11.003
20.
KleinE.AndersonL. M. (2025). Sharing the mic: Ethical considerations in qualitative interviewing of dyads living with cognitive impairment. AJOB Neuroscience, 16(2), 94–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2025.2474230
21.
LawrenceV.PickettJ.BallardC.MurrayJ. (2014). Patient and carer views on participating in clinical trials for prodromal Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 29(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.3958
22.
LeeK. H.LeeJ. Y.KimB. (2022). Person-centered care in persons living with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Gerontologist, 62(4), e253–e264. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa207
23.
MaiettaR.MihasP.SwartoutK.PetruzzelliJ.HamiltonA. B. (2021). Sort and sift, think and shift: Let the data be your guide an applied approach to working with, learning from, and privileging qualitative data. Qualitative Report, 26(6), 2045–2060. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5013
24.
MathiesonA.ElveyR.WilsonP. (2024). Development and application of a qualitative rapid analysis framework in a hybrid trial within primary care. BMJ Open, 14(7), Article e076792. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076792
25.
McKeownJ.ClarkeA.IngletonC.RepperJ. (2010). Actively involving people with dementia in qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(13-14), 1935–1943. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03136.x
26.
MooreT. F.HollettJ. (2003). Giving voice to persons living with dementia: The researcher’s opportunities and challenges. Nursing Science Quarterly, 16(2), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318403251793251793
27.
NevedalA. L.ReardonC. M.Opra WiderquistM. A.JacksonG. L.CutronaS. L.WhiteB. S.DamschroderL. J. (2021). Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Implementation Science, 16(1), Article 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01111-5
28.
NinerS.BranF.MohanD.WarrenN. (2023). Evaluating the extent of participation of people living with dementia in research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, Article 16094069231211247. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231211247
29.
Olmos-VegaF. M.StalmeijerR. E.VarpioL.KahlkeR. (2022). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE guide no. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287
30.
O’SheaE.TimmonsS.IrvingK. (2025). Meaningful inclusion of people with dementia in interview research: Adopting the “intentional stance”. Frontiers in Dementia, 4, Article 1596393. https://doi.org/10.3389/frdem.2025.1596393
31.
PaisR.RuanoL.CarvalhoO. P.BarrosH. (2020). Global cognitive impairment prevalence and incidence in community dwelling older adults-a systematic review. Geriatrics (Basel), 5(4), Article 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics5040084
32.
PhenwanT.SixsmithJ.McSwigganL.BuchananD. (2021). A rapid review of internet mediated research methods with people with dementia: Practical, technical and ethical considerations. Qualitative Report, 26(11), 3318–3341. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5089
QuinnC.DunbarS. B.ClarkP. C.StricklandO. L. (2010). Challenges and strategies of dyad research: Cardiovascular examples. Applied Nursing Research, 23(2), e15–e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2008.10.001
36.
SetiaM.IslamA. M.ThompsonJ. P.MatcharD. B. (2011). Stakeholders’ perspective on issues and challenges associated with care and treatment of aging-related cognitive impairment disorders in Singapore. International Psychogeriatrics, 23(9), 1421–1432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610211000846
37.
SixsmithJ.SixsmithA. (2021). Doing research ethically. In SixsmithA.SixsmithJ.MihailidisA.FangM. L. (Eds.), Knowledge, innovation, and impact: A guide for the engaged health research (pp. 191–202). Springer.
38.
SnyderL. (2003). Satisfactions and challenges in spiritual faith and practice for persons with dementia. Dementia, 2(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/14713012030023002
39.
Stockwell-SmithG.MoyleW.GrealishL.ComansT.VargheseP.WhitlatchC.Orsulic-JerasS. (2024). A post-diagnosis information and support programme for dyads-people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and family carers: A feasibility study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 80(11), 4422–4435. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16167
40.
SwanL.KochovskaS.RiesN.GilmoreI.ParkerD.SinclairC.SheehanC.CollierA.LobbE.SheahanL.BrownL.ChapmanM.LeeW.Amgarth-DuffI.ToT.AgarM. R.HosieA. (2025). Strategies to improve research participation by older people with cognitive impairment: A systematic review. The Gerontologist, 65(6), Article gnae188. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnae188
41.
TaylorB.HenshallC.KenyonS.LitchfieldI.GreenfieldS. (2018). Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis. BMJ Open, 8(10), Article e019993. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019993
42.
Vindrola-PadrosC.JohnsonG. A. (2020). Rapid techniques in qualitative research: A critical review of the literature. Qualitative Health Research, 30(10), 1596–1604. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320921835
43.
ZarhinD. (2018). Conducting joint interviews with couples: Ethical and methodological challenges. Qualitative Health Research, 28(5), 844–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317749196
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
