Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31066683›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Qualitative Interview Studies of Working Mechanisms in Electronic Health: Tools to Enhance Study Quality.

Marianne Ts Holter, Ayna B Johansen, Ottar Ness, Svend Brinkmann, Mette T Høybye, Håvar Brendryen

Abstract readInterview
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Marianne Ts Holter *Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research (SERAF), Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6589-8937
Ayna B Johansen *Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research (SERAF), Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1915-8225
Ottar Ness *Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7322-2227
Svend Brinkmann *Department of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7579-1212
Mette T Høybye *Elective Surgery Centre, Regional Hospital Silkeborg, Silkeborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6914-2697
Håvar Brendryen *Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research (SERAF), Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3860-9754

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Future development of electronic health (eHealth) programs (automated Web-based health interventions) will be furthered if program design can be based on the knowledge of eHealth's working mechanisms. A promising and pragmatic method for exploring potential working mechanisms is qualitative interview studies, in which eHealth working mechanisms can be explored through the perspective of the program user. Qualitative interview studies are promising as they are suited for exploring what is yet unknown, building new knowledge, and constructing theory. They are also pragmatic, as the development of eHealth programs often entails user interviews for applied purposes (eg, getting feedback for program improvement or identifying barriers for implementation). By capitalizing on these existing (applied) user interviews to also pursue (basic) research questions of how such programs work, the knowledge base of eHealth's working mechanisms can grow quickly. To be useful, such interview studies need to be of sufficient quality, which entails that the interviews should generate enough data of sufficient quality relevant to the research question (ie, rich data). However, getting rich interview data on eHealth working mechanisms can be surprisingly challenging, as several of the authors have experienced. Moreover, when encountering difficulties as we did, there are few places to turn to, there are currently no guidelines for conducting such interview studies in a way that ensure their quality. In this paper, we build on our experience as well as the qualitative literature to address this need, by describing 5 challenges that may arise in such interviews and presenting methodological tools to counteract each challenge. We hope the ideas we offer will spark methodological reflections and provide some options for researchers interested in using qualitative interview studies to explore eHealth's working mechanisms.

Indexed as

Health PromotionHumansQualitative ResearchResearch DesignTelemedicinedata collectioneHealthhealth care evaluation mechanismsinterviews as topicmHealthmobile healthtelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID31066683
PMCPMC6526686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.