ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Using a Large Language Model to Support Thematic Analysis of Patient Experiences in Chronic Illness Management: Comparative Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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
backgroundQualitative health research often focuses on how patients experience and manage chronic illnesses, a topic that has been extensively studied in the literature. With the emergence of large language models (LLMs), such as Claude (Anthropic PBC) and ChatGPT (OpenAI), new opportunities are arising to support and scale the thematic analysis of narrative health data. However, their role and added value compared to traditional human-led approaches remain underexplored, particularly in complex clinical contexts such as multimorbidity.
objectiveWe aim to evaluate the methodological contribution of LLM-assisted analysis by examining its ability to replicate and extend established qualitative insights, in comparison with traditional thematic analysis.
methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 30 individuals living with two or more chronic illnesses. Transcripts were analyzed using both manual thematic coding and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. A structured comparison was conducted to identify shared and unique themes across the two approaches. The analysis examined thematic overlap, differences in subtheme identification, and variation in the level of detail between the methods.
resultsBoth approaches identified similar core themes related to the patient experience, including health care navigation and challenges, support systems and family dynamics, and emotional challenges and coping. Manual analysis produced more contextually detailed interpretations, while the LLM approach identified a larger number of subthemes. Each method also revealed distinct themes: the manual analysis included themes such as faith, caregiving roles, and a proactive mindset, whereas the LLM identified themes such as future planning and multiple health conditions. The findings show both similarities and differences between the two approaches. The LLM analysis also demonstrated efficiency in processing large volumes of qualitative data.
conclusionsA hybrid approach that integrates artificial intelligence-assisted and human-led thematic analysis can enhance both analytical depth and scalability. These findings support the use of LLMs as a complementary tool in qualitative research, while highlighting the importance of combining automated pattern detection with human interpretation.
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.