Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Mar 9, 2018
Open Peer Review Period: Mar 11, 2018 - Aug 18, 2018
Date Accepted: Feb 7, 2019
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Qualitative Interview Studies of Working Mechanisms in Electronic Health: Tools to Enhance Study Quality

Holter MT, Johansen AB, Ness O, Brinkmann S, Høybye MT, Brendryen H

Qualitative Interview Studies of Working Mechanisms in Electronic Health: Tools to Enhance Study Quality

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(5):e10354

DOI: 10.2196/10354

PMID: 31066683

PMCID: 6526686

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Qualitative Interview Studies of Working Mechanisms in Electronic Health: Tools to Enhance Study Quality

  • Marianne TS Holter; 
  • Ayna B Johansen; 
  • Ottar Ness; 
  • Svend Brinkmann; 
  • Mette T. Høybye; 
  • Håvar Brendryen

Future development of electronic health (eHealth) programs (automated Web-based health interventions) will be furthered if program design can be based on the knowledge of eHealth’s working mechanisms. A promising and pragmatic method for exploring potential working mechanisms is qualitative interview studies, in which eHealth working mechanisms can be explored through the perspective of the program user. Qualitative interview studies are promising as they are suited for exploring what is yet unknown, building new knowledge, and constructing theory. They are also pragmatic, as the development of eHealth programs often entails user interviews for applied purposes (eg, getting feedback for program improvement or identifying barriers for implementation). By capitalizing on these existing (applied) user interviews to also pursue (basic) research questions of how such programs work, the knowledge base of eHealth’s working mechanisms can grow quickly. To be useful, such interview studies need to be of sufficient quality, which entails that the interviews should generate enough data of sufficient quality relevant to the research question (ie, rich data). However, getting rich interview data on eHealth working mechanisms can be surprisingly challenging, as several of the authors have experienced. Moreover, when encountering difficulties as we did, there are few places to turn to, there are currently no guidelines for conducting such interview studies in a way that ensure their quality. In this paper, we build on our experience as well as the qualitative literature to address this need, by describing 5 challenges that may arise in such interviews and presenting methodological tools to counteract each challenge. We hope the ideas we offer will spark methodological reflections and provide some options for researchers interested in using qualitative interview studies to explore eHealth’s working mechanisms.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Holter MT, Johansen AB, Ness O, Brinkmann S, Høybye MT, Brendryen H

Qualitative Interview Studies of Working Mechanisms in Electronic Health: Tools to Enhance Study Quality

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(5):e10354

DOI: 10.2196/10354

PMID: 31066683

PMCID: 6526686

Per the author's request the PDF is not available.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.