ArticleSSM. Qualitative research in health2021
"Thought provoking", "interactive", and "more like a peer talk": Testing the deliberative interview style in Germany.
Article in SSM. Qualitative research in health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing a contextually and culturally relevant benefit-sharing framework for pathogen genomic research and biobanking in africa: a deliberative expert approach.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring computer-aided health decision-making on cervical cancer interventions through deliberative interviews in Ethiopia.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Consent Requirements for Testing Health Policies: An Intercontinental Comparison of Expert Opinions.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proponents of the newly-developed "deliberative interview" argue that examining complex issues requires more dynamic and engaging interview exchanges. Unlike traditional qualitative interviews, deliberative interviewing champions opinion sharing, active debates and similar speaking times by both sides throughout the interview. Drawing on 20 interviews with health experts in Germany, we examined the process and outcome of deliberative versus conventional interviews on the topic of informed consent. The deliberative interview expedited clarity on the issue, led to more nuanced discussion and generated more knowledge overall, but was challenging because it broke the mold for traditional interviewing. Alignment in terms of gender, age, personality and professional background facilitated rapport, regardless of interview style. To manage expectations, we recommend a thorough, perhaps video-based explanation of the deliberative style prior to the interview. Deliberative interviews can bolster knowledge generation for complex issues and can be applied in public health and beyond.
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.