Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38920273›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2024

Methodological and practical guidance for designing and conducting online qualitative surveys in public health.

Samantha L Thomas, Hannah Pitt, Simone McCarthy, Grace Arnot, Marita Hennessy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Informal carers' perception on perspective taking when reporting as proxies about someone else's health.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 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. 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

5 authors.

Samantha L ThomasFaculty of Health, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Geringhap Street, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1427-7775
Hannah PittFaculty of Health, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Geringhap Street, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4259-6186
Simone McCarthyFaculty of Health, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Geringhap Street, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2671-3511
Grace ArnotFaculty of Health, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Geringhap Street, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5646-6366
Marita HennessyCollege of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-7742-8118

Funding

Irish Hospice Foundation NF/2021/27123063Irish Research Council GOIPD/2023/1168
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Online qualitative surveys-those surveys that prioritise qualitative questions and interpretivist values-have rich potential for researchers, particularly in new or emerging areas of public health. However, there is limited discussion about the practical development and methodological implications of such surveys, particularly for public health researchers. This poses challenges for researchers, funders, ethics committees, and peer reviewers in assessing the rigour and robustness of such research, and in deciding the appropriateness of the method for answering different research questions. Drawing and extending on the work of other researchers, as well as our own experiences of conducting online qualitative surveys with young people and adults, we describe the processes associated with developing and implementing online qualitative surveys and writing up online qualitative survey data. We provide practical examples and lessons learned about question development, the importance of rigorous piloting strategies, use of novel techniques to prompt detailed responses from participants, and decisions that are made about data preparation and interpretation. We consider reviewer comments, and some ethical considerations of this type of qualitative research for both participants and researchers. We provide a range of practical strategies to improve trustworthiness in decision-making and data interpretation-including the importance of using theory. Rigorous online qualitative surveys that are grounded in qualitative interpretivist values offer a range of unique benefits for public health researchers, knowledge users, and research participants.

Indexed as

Public HealthQualitative ResearchResearch DesignHumansInternetSurveys and Questionnairesonline methodspublic healthqualitative researchqualitative surveysreflexive thematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID38920273
PMCPMC11200187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.