Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28985920›Full record

ArticleApplied nursing research : ANR2017

Comparing appropriateness and equivalence of email interviews to phone interviews in qualitative research on reproductive decisions.

Patricia E Hershberger, Karen Kavanaugh

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Autistic adults' experiences of financial wellbeing: Part II.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Pathways and Patterns of Entrance into BDSM.Archives of sexual behavior · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Patricia E HershbergerCollege of Nursing and College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, United States. Electronic address: phersh@uic.edu.
Karen KavanaughChildren's Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, United States. Electronic address: Kkavanaugh@chw.org.

Funding

UIC Program for Interdisciplinary Careers in Women's Health ResearchK12HD055892 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI GELLER, STACIE E. · 2007 to 2016
$4.9M
Nursing and Health Research Informatics CoreP30NR010680 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI FOREMAN, MARQUIS D · 2007 to 2011
$2.4M
PGD: Couples Decision Making at the Genetic and Reproductive InterfaceR03NR010351 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI HERSHBERGER, PATRICIA · 2008 to 2009
$157k
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD055892NINR NIH HHS P30 NR010680NINR NIH HHS R03 NR010351
6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingElectronic MailInterviews as TopicReproductionFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchData collection methodsDecision researchElectronic mailInternetQualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID28985920
PMCPMC5658038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.