Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39412120›Full record

ReviewMedical education2025

When words fail us: An integrative review of innovative elicitation techniques for qualitative interviews.

Renate Kahlke, Lauren A Maggio, Mark C Lee, Sayra Cristancho, Kori LaDonna, Zahra Abdallah, Aakashdeep Khehra, Kushal Kshatri, Tanya Horsley, Lara Varpio

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Renate KahlkeDivision of Education and Innovation, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4473-5039
Lauren A MaggioDepartment of Medical Education, University of Illinois, Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Mark C LeeMcMaster Education Research, Innovation and Theory Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1264-3260
Sayra CristanchoDepartment of Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8738-2130
Kori LaDonnaDepartment of Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4738-0146
Zahra AbdallahDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Aakashdeep KhehraDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Kushal KshatriDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Tanya HorsleyResearch and Evaluation, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1256-9582
Lara VarpioDepartment of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1412-4341

Funding

Society of Directors of Research in Medical Education
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInterviews are central to many qualitative studies in health professions education (HPE). However, researchers often struggle to elicit rich data and engage diverse participants who may find this strategy exclusionary. Elicitation techniques are strategies tailored to address these challenges, enhancing oral conversations through other forms of interaction-for example, participant photography and neighbourhood walks. These strategies are tailored to elicit the rich data needed to address complex problems and meaningfully engage participants. Unfortunately, guidance on these techniques is scattered across literatures from diverse fields. In this synthesis, we offer an overview of the elicitation techniques available and advice about how to choose between them.

methodsWe conducted an integrative review, drawing on methodological literature from across the health and social sciences. Our interdisciplinary searches yielded 3056 citations. We included 293 citations that were methodologically focused and discussed elicitation techniques used in interviews with adults. We then extracted specific elicitation techniques, summarising each technique to capture key features, as well as strengths and weaknesses. From this, we developed a framework to help researchers identify challenges in their interview-based research and to select elicitation techniques that address their challenges.

resultsTo enrich data, researchers might seek to shift conversations away from participants' entrenched narratives, to externalise conversations on sensitive topics, or to elicit affect, tacit knowledge or contextual details. When empowering participants, researchers might seek to increase equity between the researcher and participant or foster interview accessibility across diverse participant populations. DISCUSSION: When chosen with study goals in mind, elicitation techniques can enrich interview data. To harness this potential, we need to re-conceptualise interviews as co-production of knowledge by researcher(s) and participant(s). To make interviews more equitable and accessible, we need to consider flexibility so that each participant can engage in ways that best suit their needs and preferences.

Indexed as

Interviews as TopicQualitative ResearchCommunicationHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID39412120
PMCPMC11906277

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.