ArticleApplied nursing research : ANR2017
Comparing appropriateness and equivalence of email interviews to phone interviews in qualitative research on reproductive decisions.
Article in Applied nursing research : ANR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms of impact and experiences of a person-centred transition programme for adolescents with CHD: the Stepstones project.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Service user experiences of using internet-based testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs): a qualitative study.Sexually transmitted infections · 2024Article
- Autistic adults' experiences of financial wellbeing: Part II.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2024Article
- Patterns of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication During Sex.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
- Why do students struggle in their first year of medical school? A qualitative study of student voices.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Pathways and Patterns of Entrance into BDSM.Archives of sexual behavior · 2022Article
- Transmasculine Persons' Experiences of Encounters with Health Care Professionals Within Reproductive, Perinatal, and Sexual Health in Sweden: A Qualitative Interview Study.Transgender health · 2021Article
- When face-to-face interviews are not possible: tips and tricks for video, telephone, online chat, and email interviews in qualitative research.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2021Article
- Cancer patient perspectives on survivorship goals from the Smart Patients online community.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Feasibility of a mHealth survey application for incarcerated and postrelease people living with HIV in a low-resource setting.Research in nursing & health · 2021Article
- Community-Society Equilibrium: Religious Organizations in the Service of a Secular State.Contemporary Jewry · 2021Article
- Factors affecting adolescents' participation in randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of healthcare interventions: the case of the STEPSTONES project.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Developing a Self-Administered Decision Aid for Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Tailored to Citizens With Lower Educational Attainment: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite an increasing use of qualitative email interviews by nurse researchers, there is little understanding about the appropriateness and equivalence of email interviews to other qualitative data collection methods, especially on sensitive topics research. PURPOSE: The purpose is to describe our procedures for completing asynchronous, email interviews and to evaluate the appropriateness and equivalency of email interviews to phone interviews in two qualitative research studies that examined reproductive decisions.
methodsContent analysis guided the methodological appraisal of appropriateness and equivalency of in-depth, asynchronous email interviews to single phone interviews. Appropriateness was determined by: (a) participants' willingness to engage in email or phone interviews, (b) completing data collection in a timely period, and (c) participants' satisfaction with the interview. Equivalency was evaluated by: (a) completeness of the interview data, and (b) insight obtained from the data.
resultsOf the combined sample in the two studies (N=71), 31% of participants chose to participate via an email interview over a phone interview. The time needed to complete the email interviews averaged 27 to 28days and the number of investigator probe-participant response interchanges was 4 to 5cycles on average. In contrast, the phone interviews averaged 59 to 61min in duration. Most participants in both the email and phone interviews reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with their ability to express their true feelings throughout the interview. Regarding equivalence, 100% of the email and phone interviews provided insight into decision processes. Although insightful, two of the email and one phone interview had short answers or, at times, underdeveloped responses. Participants' quotes and behaviors cited within four published articles, a novel evaluation of equivalency, revealed that 20% to 37.5% of the citations about decision processes were from email participants, which is consistent with the percent of email participants.
conclusionsIn-depth, asynchronous email interviews were appropriate and garnered rich, insightful data that augmented the phone interviews. Awareness of the procedures, appropriateness, and nuances when carrying out email interviews on sensitive topics may provide nurse researchers with the ability to obtain thick, rich data that can best advance clinical practice and direct future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.