Using interviews as qualitative data collection tool in health sciences research

In the study of human health, numbers tell only half the story. While statistics can reveal how many people are sick or how often a treatment works, they often cannot explain why a patient feels afraid to seek help, what a community believes causes an illness, or how a doctor truly experiences a difficult day. To understand these hidden layers of human experience, researchers turn to a method as old as conversation itself: the interview. Unlike a survey where a person simply checks a box, a research interview is a guided dialogue where a researcher asks open questions to uncover the thoughts, feelings, and personal stories behind health behaviors. This approach allows scientists to see the world through the eyes of the people living it, capturing the complex social and cultural settings that shape how we get sick and how we heal.

A new review by Luke Laari from the University of Ghana brings together the essential knowledge on how to conduct these interviews effectively within health sciences. The paper serves as a practical guide for researchers, outlining not just why interviews are valuable, but exactly how to design them, ask the right questions, and handle the delicate human dynamics that arise when people share their most personal stories. The author argues that while technology has opened up new ways to talk to people over phones and video calls, the core principles of building trust and asking thoughtful questions remain the same. The review suggests that the quality of the data depends heavily on the researcher's preparation, their ability to listen, and their awareness of how factors like gender and privacy influence what a participant is willing to say.

The paper breaks down the interview process into three distinct stages: planning, doing, and finishing. In the planning phase, the researcher must define exactly what they want to learn and create a list of questions that are open-ended and neutral, avoiding any wording that might lead the participant to a specific answer. This stage also involves securing ethical approval and ensuring that participants understand their rights, including the right to stop the interview at any time. Once the interview begins, the goal is to build a comfortable relationship, often called rapport, so the participant feels safe enough to share honest details. The researcher listens closely, not just to the words spoken, but to the pauses and emotions that accompany them, sometimes taking notes on body language that a recording device might miss. After the conversation ends, the work continues with transcribing the recording word-for-word and checking back with the participant to ensure their story was captured accurately.

One of the most detailed sections of the review focuses on the art of asking questions. The author suggests that the flow of an interview should follow a natural path, starting with broad, easy questions to help the person relax, such as asking them to describe a typical day. As trust builds, the conversation can move to more specific experiences and then to deeper feelings or sensitive topics. The paper warns against starting with "why" questions, which can make people feel defensive or judged, and instead recommends using questions that invite storytelling. For example, rather than asking why someone made a certain health choice, a researcher might ask for a specific story about a time they faced that decision. The review also highlights the importance of ending the interview on a positive or reflective note, ensuring the participant leaves the conversation feeling respected rather than emotionally burdened.

The choice of how to conduct the interview—whether in person, over the phone, or through video chat—also plays a critical role in the quality of the information gathered. Face-to-face meetings are considered the gold standard because they allow the researcher to see the environment and observe non-verbal cues like a nervous glance or a comforting smile. However, the paper acknowledges that remote methods have become increasingly important, especially when travel is difficult or during public health crises. While these digital methods offer convenience and can sometimes make people feel more comfortable sharing sensitive information, they come with their own challenges, such as technical glitches or the inability to see the full picture of the participant's surroundings. The author emphasizes that regardless of the method, the researcher must be skilled at adapting their approach to maintain a genuine connection.

Beyond the mechanics of the conversation, the review stresses the importance of considering the people involved. Factors such as the gender of the interviewer and the participant can significantly influence how open a person is willing to be, particularly when discussing sensitive health topics. In many cultures, a person may feel more comfortable sharing personal struggles with someone of the same gender. Similarly, the need for privacy is paramount; without a guarantee of a safe, confidential space, participants may hold back the very details that make the research valuable. The paper also notes that researchers must be aware of their own biases and how their background might shape the way they interpret what they hear.

Ultimately, this review confirms that interviews are a powerful tool for uncovering the rich, detailed stories behind health and illness, but they require patience, skill, and deep respect for the people sharing their lives. The author concludes that while interviews cannot predict trends for large populations in the way a statistical survey can, they provide a depth of understanding that is essential for improving patient care and health policies. By following these guidelines, researchers can ensure that the voices of patients and communities are heard clearly, adding a necessary human dimension to the scientific understanding of health.