ArticleDigital health
Transforming qualitative research: The AQUATIC approach to AI-driven data analysis.
Article in Digital health. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study presents a protocol that integrates conversational artificial intelligence into qualitative data analysis to support rapid, decision-oriented descriptive analysis in public health settings. The protocol was developed during an applied project with Hamilton County Public Health that analyzed interviews with the next of kin of overdose decedents to inform local strategies. The objective is to describe the protocol, its safeguards for data familiarization and human verification, and its practical application in a real-world case. Methods: Evaluators designed and tested manual coding, intentional artificial intelligence-assisted coding, and conversational artificial intelligence within ATLAS.ti, selecting the conversational approach for the protocol. The protocol requires a mandatory pre-analysis familiarization phase that includes reading a stratified subset of transcripts and drafting immersion memos. Analysts then pose structured natural language queries tied to prespecified research questions. All outputs are treated as proposals and undergo required human verification, including confirmation of quoted evidence and contextual review. Theme-level benchmarking compared independent human synthesis with conversational artificial intelligence outputs. Results: Conversational artificial intelligence produced rapid descriptive findings anchored to verifiable text, enabling efficient auditing through embedded links. Theme-level comparison showed conceptual overlap between human and artificial intelligence outputs, with transparent documentation of areas of divergence. The protocol supported rapid training of local personnel and sustained in-house analysis capacity. Conclusion: The protocol formalizes a pragmatic workflow for question-led, top-down descriptive analysis using conversational artificial intelligence with mandatory human oversight. It is not intended to replace interpretive or theory-generating approaches but offers a transparent and scalable option for time sensitive, decision-focused qualitative work.
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.