Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30233833›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2018

Systematic debriefing after qualitative encounters: an essential analysis step in applied qualitative research.

Shannon A McMahon, Peter J Winch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing 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

135 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Fatigue and Cognitive Impairment in Adults With Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: Results From Concept Elicitation Interviews.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A qualitative exploration of patient perspectives regarding patient education during their colorectal surgical experience.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Article

75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Shannon A McMahonInstitute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8634-9283
Peter J WinchDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8569-5507

Funding

Preventing HIV in newborns and infants: the experience of Tanzanian mothersF31MH095653 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MCMAHON, SHANNON · 2012 to 2014
$109k
NIMH NIH HHS F31 MH095653
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conversations regarding qualitative research and qualitative data analysis in global public health programming often emphasize the product of data collection (audio recordings, transcripts, codebooks and codes), while paying relatively less attention to the process of data collection. In qualitative research, however, the data collector's skills determine the quality of the data, so understanding data collectors' strengths and weaknesses as data are being collected allows researchers to enhance both the ability of data collectors and the utility of the data. This paper defines and discusses a process for systematic debriefings. Debriefings entail thorough, goal-oriented discussion of data immediately after it is collected. Debriefings take different forms and fulfill slightly different purposes as data collection progresses. Drawing from examples in our health systems research in Tanzania and Sierra Leone, we elucidate how debriefings have allowed us to: enhance the skills of data collectors; gain immediate insights into the content of data; correct course amid unforeseen changes and challenges in the local context; strengthen the quality and trustworthiness of data in real time; and quickly share emerging data with stakeholders in programmatic, policy and academic spheres. We hope this article provides guidance and stimulates discussion on approaches to qualitative data collection and mechanisms to further outline and refine debriefings in qualitative research.

Indexed as

health services researchpublic healthqualitative study

Identifiers

PMID30233833
PMCPMC6135453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.