“Thought provoking”, “interactive”, and “more like a peer talk”: Testing the deliberative interview style in Germany

Abstract

Proponents of the newly-developed “deliberative interview” argue that examining complex issues requires more dynamic and engaging interview exchanges. Unlike traditional qualitative interviews, deliberative interviewing champions opinion sharing, active debates and similar speaking times by both sides throughout the interview. Drawing on 20 interviews with health experts in Germany, we examined the process and outcome of deliberative versus conventional interviews on the topic of informed consent. The deliberative interview expedited clarity on the issue, led to more nuanced discussion and generated more knowledge overall, but was challenging because it broke the mold for traditional interviewing. Alignment in terms of gender, age, personality and professional background facilitated rapport, regardless of interview style. To manage expectations, we recommend a thorough, perhaps video-based explanation of the deliberative style prior to the interview. Deliberative interviews can bolster knowledge generation for complex issues and can be applied in public health and beyond.

Consent Requirements for Testing Health Policies: An Intercontinental Comparison of Expert Opinions

“…Can we do something like that?”…[…]… they should come to consensus and should include local implementers because they are the ones who are aware of the problems that arise at the ground level [where the implementation will take place]”. (ethicist, Bangladesh)Yet, other researchers in Bangladesh and Germany held the opinion that health personnel should be informed and consulted but not asked for consent about taking part in the HPE, as this would “reduce the generalizability of results” (researcher, Germany) (Berner-Rodoreda et al, 2021). The implementers at the institutional level, for example DG Health, would be aware of it [the experiment] obviously since they would be implementing.…”

“…Debriefings also served to find commonalities and differences across countries. A more detailed description of findings in Germany in relation to interviewing techniques has been published elsewhere (Berner-Rodoreda et al, 2021). Research assistants and team members transcribed the interviews.…”

“…This study was approved by the Heidelberg Ethics Commission in Germany (S-291/2018) (Berner-Rodoreda et al, 2021), the Institutional Review Board of BRAC James P. Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University in Bangladesh (2018-018-IR) and the Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences Institutional Review Board (DA. 282/298/01.0C) in Tanzania.…”

“…All interview partners received oral and written information about the research project and provided informed written consent prior to being interviewed. Interview transcripts were given pseudonyms in order to protect the identity of the interview partner (Berner-Rodoreda et al, 2021).…”

“…As set out in the Introduction, we included a definition of HPEs in the interview guide to mitigate definitional concerns that emerged in piloting. The interview guide consisted of concrete examples of a health policy (a government raising the number of health staff in order to improve quality care in the country), a health policy experiment (the testing of national syphilis screening by randomizing health facilities) and a clinical trial (testing a new medication) (Berner-Rodoreda et al, 2021). IPs were asked to provide their opinion on the respective consent requirements, which were then probed further.…”