Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38064244›Full record

ArticleQualitative health research2024

Artificial Intelligence Augmented Qualitative Analysis: The Way of the Future?

Danielle Hitch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Qualitative health research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The benefits and future potential of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) on mental health: a Delphi study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Unmet Needs and Service Priorities for ADHD in Australia: AI-Assisted Analysis of Senate Inquiry Submissions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Danielle HitchDeakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2798-2246

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The artificial intelligence (AI) revolution is here and gathering momentum, thanks to new models of natural language processing (NLP) and rapidly increasing adoption by the public. NLP technology uses statistical analysis of language structures to analyse and generate human language, using text or speech as its source material. It can also be applied to visual mediums like images and videos. A few qualitative research early adopters are beginning to adopt this technology into their work, but our understanding of its potential remains in its infancy. This article will define and describe NLP-based AI and discuss its benefits and limitations for reflexive thematic analysis in health research. While there are many platforms available, ChatGPT is the most well-known and accessible. A worked example using ChatGPT to augment reflexive thematic analysis is provided to illustrate potential application in practice. This article is intended to inspire further conversation around the role of AI in qualitative research and offer practical guidance for researchers seeking to adopt this technology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNatural Language ProcessingQualitative ResearchHumansartificial intelligenceChatGPTqualitative analysisreflexive thematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID38064244
PMCPMC11103925

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.