ArticleQualitative health research2026
Reflecting on LLM Support in Reflexive Thematic Analysis: An Exploratory Study.
Article in Qualitative health research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative Artificial Intelligence for Qualitative Methods in Health Research: Rapid Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Review
- Insights on supplement use during cancer care from online Reddit conversations.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Large language models for thematic analysis in healthcare research: A blinded mixed-methods comparison with human analysts.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Using large language models to assist qualitative thematic analysis of student reflections on advance care planning education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Understanding women's physical and emotional experiences following medication abortion in china: a qualitative study using the writing express method.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 accelerated discussions and research into whether base large language models (LLMs) could increase the efficiency of qualitative analysis phases or even replace qualitative researchers. Reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) is a commonly used method for qualitative text analysis that emphasizes the researcher's subjectivity and reflexivity to enable a situated, in-depth understanding of knowledge generation. Researchers appear optimistic about the potential of LLMs in qualitative research; however, questions remain about whether base models can meaningfully contribute to the interpretation and abstraction of a dataset. The primary objective of this study was to explore how LLMs may support an RTA of an interview text from health science research. Secondary objectives included identifying recommended prompt strategies for similar studies, highlighting potential weaknesses or challenges, and fostering engagement among qualitative researchers regarding these threats and possibilities. We provided the interview file to an offline LLM and conducted a series of tests aligned with the phases of RTA. Insights from each test guided refinements to the next and contributed to the development of a recommended prompt strategy. At this stage, base LLMs provide limited support and do not increase the efficiency of RTA. At best, LLMs may identify gaps in the researchers' perspectives. Realizing the potential of LLMs to inspire broader discussion and deeper reflections requires a well-defined strategy and the avoidance of misleading prompts, self-referential responses, misguiding translations, and errors. Conclusively, high-quality RTA requires a human, comprehensive familiarization phase, and methodological competence to preserve epistemological integrity.
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.