Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32903872›Full record

ArticleQualitative research : QR2020

Conducting in-depth interviews with and without voice recorders: a comparative analysis.

Rwamahe Rutakumwa, Joseph Okello Mugisha, Sarah Bernays, Elizabeth Kabunga, Grace Tumwekwase, Martin Mbonye, Janet Seeley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Qualitative research : QR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing 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

101 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Emergency Medicine in South Africa: Progress, challenges, and future directions from a qualitative inquiry.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

41 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

7 authors.

Rwamahe RutakumwaMRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda.
Joseph Okello MugishaMRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda.
Sarah BernaysSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia; Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
Elizabeth KabungaMRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda.
Grace TumwekwaseMRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda.
Martin MbonyeMRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda; Child Health and Development Centre, Makerere University, Uganda.
Janet SeeleyMRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda; Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0583-5272

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00027/4Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of audio recordings has become a taken-for-granted approach to generating transcripts of in-depth interviewing and group discussions. In this paper we begin by describing circumstances where the use of a recorder is not, or may not be, possible, before sharing our comparative analysis of audio-recorded transcriptions and interview scripts made from notes taken during the interview (by experienced, well-trained interviewers). Our comparison shows that the data quality between audio-recorded transcripts and interview scripts written directly after the interview were comparable in the detail captured. The structures of the transcript and script were usually different because in the interview scripts, topics and ideas were grouped, rather than being in the more scattered order of the conversation in the transcripts. We suggest that in some circumstances not recording is the best approach, not 'second best'.

Indexed as

audio recordingData collectionfield notesgroup discussionsinterviewsrigourtranscriptiontrustworthiness

Identifiers

PMID32903872
PMCPMC7444018

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.