Trial reportPloS one2025
Using photovoice to facilitate the report of emotions in an interview setting: An experimental study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFinding words to describe emotional experiences can be challenging. Photovoice (PV) represents a possible way of facilitating the report of emotions. In the PV approach, people take pictures that they feel are related to a certain topic. Afterwards, they are invited to talk about this topic based on the pictures. There is a lack of experimental studies investigating the effectiveness of PV to aid in emotional processing in comparison to other methods.
methodsSixty-five participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (mean age: 28.23 years [SD = 9.23], 76% female). The photovoice-group received the task to take pictures that reflect future worries about something in the future. Participants in the active control group, the writing group, were instructed to write down their future worries. The control group did not receive an assignment. In a subsequent semi-structured interview, all participants were invited to talk about their future worries. The interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed. The number of emotion words was counted during the transcriptions. After the interview, participants completed an online self-report questionnaire addressing a range of variables such as the participants' emotional state and their perceived difficulty identifying emotions.
resultsContrary to our hypotheses, one-way ANOVAs revealed no differences in any of the self-report measures between the three study groups (all p values > 0.14). Planned contrasts regarding the transcribed interviews revealed, however, that the PV-group reported more negative emotion words compared to the two other groups t(62) = 2.79, p = .007, and also compared to the WG only, t(62) = 2.48, p = .016. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The discrepancy between self-report regarding emotionality in the questionnaires and emotion words observed during the interviews is notable. PV increased the observational emotion report even in a sample with high emotional awareness. Future research should examine if PV can facilitate emotion reporting in a clinical sample.
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.