Imperial College London Imperial College London

Latest news.

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

Imperial celebrates vital ties with Malaysia

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

Communications Division first in-house team to receive Blueprint diversity mark

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

Imperial-built instrument jets off to NASA ahead of major solar wind mission

  • Centre for Higher Education Research and Scholarship
  • Research and Innovation
  • Education evaluation toolkit
  • Tools and resources for evaluation

Interview protocol design

On this page you will find our recommendations for creating an interview protocol for both structured and semi-structured interviews. Your protocol can be viewed as a guide for the interview: what to say at the beginning of the interview to introduce yourself and the topic of the interview, how to collect participant consent, interview questions, and what to say when you end the interview. These tips have been adapted from  Jacob and Furgerson’s (2012) guide to writing interview protocols and conducting interviews for those new to qualitative research. Your protocol may have more questions if you are planning a structured interview. However, it may have fewer and more open-ended questions if you are planning a semi-structured interview, in order to allow more time for participants to elaborate on their responses and for you to ask follow-up questions.

Interview protocol design accordion widget

Use a script to open and close the interview.

This will allow you to share all of the relevant information about your study and critical details about informed consent before you begin the interview. It will also allow a space to close the interview and give the participant an opportunity to share additional thoughts that haven’t yet been discussed in the interview.

Collect informed consent

The most common (and encouraged) means of gaining informed consent is by giving the participant a participant information sheet as well as an informed consent form to read through and then sign before you begin the interview. You can find the template for participant information sheets  and informed consent form on the Imperial College London Education Ethics Review Process (EERP) webpage . Other resources for the EERP process can also be found on this website.

Start with the basics

To help build rapport and a comfortable space for the participant, start out with questions that ask for some basic background information. This could include asking their name, their course year, how they are doing, whether they have any interesting things happening at the moment, their likes and interests etc. (although be careful not to come across as inauthentic). This will help both you and the participant to have an open conversation throughout the interview.

Create open-ended questions

Open-ended questions enable more time and space for the participant to open up and share more detail about their experiences. Using phrases like “Tell me about…” rather than “Did you ever experience X?” will be less likely to elicit only “yes” or “no” answers, which do not provide rich data. If a participant does give a “yes” or “no” answer, but you would like to know more, you can ask, “Can you tell me why?” or “Could you please elaborate on that answer a bit more?” For example, if you are interviewing a student about their sense of belonging at Imperial, you could ask, “Can you tell me about a time when you felt a real sense that you belonged at Imperial College London?”

Ensure your questions are informed by existing research

Before creating your interview questions, conduct a thorough review of the literature about the topic you are investigating through interviews. For example, research on the topic of “students’ sense of belonging” has emphasised the importance of students feeling respected by other members of the university. Therefore, it would be a good idea to include a question about “respect” if you are interested in your students’ sense of belonging at Imperial or within their departments and study areas (e.g. the classroom). See our sense of belonging interview protocol for an idea.

Begin with questions that are easier to answer, then move to more difficult or abstract questions

Be aware that even if you have explained your topic to the participant, you should not assume that they have the same understanding of the topic as you. Resist the temptation to simply ask your research questions to your participants directly, particularly at the beginning of the interview, as these will often be too conceptual and abstract for them to answer easily. Asking abstract questions too early on can alienate your participant. By asking more concrete questions that participants can answer easily, you will build rapport and trust more quickly. Start by asking questions about concrete experiences, preferably ones that are very recent or ongoing. For example, if you are interested in students’ sense of belonging, do not start by asking whether a student “belongs” or how they perceive their “belonging.” Rather, try asking about how they have felt in recent modules to give them the opportunity to raise any positive or negative experiences themselves. Later, you can ask questions which specifically address concepts related to sense of belonging, for example whether they always feel “respected” (to follow on from our earlier example). Then, at the end of the interview, you could ask your participant to reflect more directly and generally on your topic. For example, it may be good to end an interview by asking the participant to summarise the extent to which they feel they ‘belong’ and what the main factors are. Note that this advice is particularly important if dealing with topics that may be difficult to form an opinion on, such as topics which require students to remember things from the distant past, or which deal with controversial topics.  

Use prompts

If you are asking open-ended questions, the intention is that the participant will use that as an opportunity to provide you with rich qualitative detail about their experiences and perceptions. However, participants sometimes need prompts to get them going. Try to anticipate what prompts you could give to help someone answer each of your open-ended questions (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012). For example, if you are investigating sense of belonging and the participant is struggling to respond to the question “What could someone see about you that would show them that you felt like you belonged?”, you might prompt them to think about their clothes or accessories (for example do they wear or carry anything with the Imperial College London logo) or their activities (for example membership in student groups), and what meaning they attach to these. 

Be prepared to revise your protocol during and after the interview

During the interview, you may notice that some additional questions might pop into your mind, or you might need to re-order the questions, depending on the response of the participant and the direction in which the interview is going. This is fine, as it probably means the interview is flowing like a natural conversation. You might even find that this new order of questions should be adopted for future interviews, and you can adjust the protocol accordingly.

Be mindful of how much time the interview will take

When designing the protocol, keep in mind that six to ten well-written questions may make for an interview lasting approximately one hour. Consider who you are interviewing, and remember that you are asking people to share their experiences and their time with you, so be mindful of how long you expect the interview to last.

Pilot test your questions with a colleague

Pilot testing your interview protocol will help you to assess whether your interview questions make sense. Pilot testing gives you the chance to familiarise yourself with the order and flow of the questions out loud, which will help you to feel more comfortable when you begin conducting the interviews for your data collection.

Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips for Students New to the Field of Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 17 (2), 1-10.

Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2006). Crossing Language Boundaries:. Management International Review, 46 , 417-437. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11575-006-0099-1.pdf

Prompts, Not Questions: Four Techniques for Crafting Better Interview Protocols

  • Published: 05 June 2021
  • Volume 44 , pages 507–528, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

  • Tomás R. Jiménez 1 &
  • Marlene Orozco 2  

5058 Accesses

18 Citations

14 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 05 August 2023

This article has been updated

We offer effective ways to write interview protocol “prompts” that are generative of the most critical types of information researchers wish to learn from interview respondents: salience of events, attributes, and experiences; the structure of what is normal; perceptions of cause and effect; and views about sensitive topics. We offer tips for writing and putting into practice protocol prompts that we have found to be effective at obtaining each of these kinds of information. In doing so, we encourage researchers to think of an interview protocol as a series of prompts, rather than a list of questions, for respondents to talk about certain topics related to the main research question(s). We provide illustrative examples from our own research and that of our students and professional colleagues to show how generally minor tweaks to typical interview prompts result in richer interview data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Change history

05 august 2023.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-023-09543-9

Barry, Robert A. 1957. The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research . New York: The Dryden Press.

Google Scholar  

Bates, Timothy, and Alicia Robb. 2006. Small business viability in America’s urban minority communities. Urban Studies 51 (13): 2844–2862.

Article   Google Scholar  

Becker, Howard. 1998. Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you’re doing it . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Carian, Emily K. 2019. Constructing manhood: Men's rights activists and feminist men's shared meanings of gender . PhD Dissertation. Department of Sociology, Stanford University.

Carian, Emily, and Jasmine Hill. 2021. Teaching interviews: Illuminating frameworks of social desirability in the classroom . San Bernardino. Unpublished Manuscript. Department of Sociology, California State University.

Carr, Deborah, Elizabeth Heger Boyle, Benjamin Cornwell, Shelley Correll, Robert Crosnoe, Jeremy Freese, and Mary C. Waters. 2017. The art and science of social research . New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc..

Glynn, Carroll J., Andrew F. Hayes, and James Shanahan. 1997. Perceived support for one's opinions and willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of survey studies on the "spiral of silence". The Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (3): 452–463.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life . New York: Anchor Books.

Grazian, David. 2015. American zoo: A sociological safari . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hart, Chloe Grace. 2021. Trajectory guarding: Managing unwanted, ambiguously sexual interactions at work. American Sociological Review 86 (2): 256–278.

Holland, Paul W. 1986. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81 (396): 945–960.

Jiménez, Tomás R. 2010. Replenished ethnicity: Mexican Americans, immigration, and identity . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jiménez, Tomás R. 2017. The other side of assimilation: How immigrants are changing American life . Oakland: University of California Press.

Jiménez, Tomás R., and Adam L. Horowitz. 2013. When White is just alright: How immigrants redefine achievement and reconfigure the ethnoracial hierarchy. American Sociological Review 78 (5): 849–871.

Jiménez, Tomás R., Deborah J. Schildkraut, Yuen J. Huo, and John F. Dovidio. 2021. States of belonging: Immigration policies, attitudes, and inclusion . New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.

Lamont, Michele. 2000. The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lofland, John, David Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative research and analysis . Fourth edition. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171.

Marrow, Helen B. 2011. New destination dreaming: Immigration, race, and legal status in the rural American south . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

McCracken, Grant. 1998. The long interview . Qualitative Research Methods Series. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Morgan, Stephen L., and Christopher Winship. 2014. Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research . 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nederhof, Anton J. 1985. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology 15 (3): 263–280.

Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1974. The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication 24 (2): 43–51.

Orozco, Marlene. 2021. The salience of ethnic identity in entrepreneurship: An ethnic strategies of business action framework. Unpublished Manuscript.

Rivera, Lauren A. 2016. Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Roth, Wendy. 2012. Race migrations: Latinos and the cultural transformation of race . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Roth, Wendy D., and Biorn Ivemark. 2018. Genetic options: The impact of genetic ancestry testing on consumers’ racial and ethnic identities. American Journal of Sociology 124 (1): 150–184.

Seidman, Irving. 2019. Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences . New York: Teachers College Press.

Sobotka, Tagart. 2021. Bad doctors, enablers, and the powerless: The opioid crisis and the construction of blame. PhD Dissertation. Department of Sociology, Stanford University.

Smith, Tom W., Davern, Michael, Freese, Jeremy, and Stephen L. Morgan. 2019. General social surveys, 1972–2018: Cumulative codebook. GSS NORC.  https://gss.norc.org/documents/codebook/gss_codebook.pdf .

Stuart, Forrest. 2016. Down, out, and under arrest: Policing and everyday life in skid row . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vasquez, Jessica M. 2011. Mexican Americans across generations : Immigrant families, racial realities . New York: New York University Press.

Waldinger, Roger David. 1996. Still the promised city?: African-Americans and new immigrants in postindustrial New York . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Warikoo, Natasha Kumar. 2011. Balancing acts: Youth culture in the global city . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weiss, Robert Stuart. 1995. Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies . New York: Free Press.

Widen, Sherri, Marlene Orozco, Eileen Lai Horng, and Susanna Loeb. 2019. Reaching unconnected caregivers: Using a text-message education program to better understand how to support informal caregivers role in child development. Journal of Early Childhood Research 18 (1): 29–43.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our colleagues who supported this work and provided examples from their research: Emily Carian, Molly King, Tagart Sobotka, and Chloe Hart. Special thanks to Forrest Stuart for his input on several drafts. We would also like to thank the participants of the Migration, Ethnicity, Race and Nation workshop at Stanford for their comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Stanford University, 450 Jane Stanford Way, Building 120, Room 160, Stanford, CA, 94305-2047, USA

Tomás R. Jiménez

Department of Sociology, Stanford University, 450 Jane Stanford Way, Building 120, Room 030B, Stanford, CA, 94305-2047, USA

Marlene Orozco

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomás R. Jiménez .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jiménez, T.R., Orozco, M. Prompts, Not Questions: Four Techniques for Crafting Better Interview Protocols. Qual Sociol 44 , 507–528 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-021-09483-2

Download citation

Accepted : 04 May 2021

Published : 05 June 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-021-09483-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Ethnography
  • Counterfactual
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

  • Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples

Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples

Published on March 10, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

An interview is a qualitative research method that relies on asking questions in order to collect data . Interviews involve two or more people, one of whom is the interviewer asking the questions.

There are several types of interviews, often differentiated by their level of structure.

  • Structured interviews have predetermined questions asked in a predetermined order.
  • Unstructured interviews are more free-flowing.
  • Semi-structured interviews fall in between.

Interviews are commonly used in market research, social science, and ethnographic research .

Table of contents

What is a structured interview, what is a semi-structured interview, what is an unstructured interview, what is a focus group, examples of interview questions, advantages and disadvantages of interviews, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about types of interviews.

Structured interviews have predetermined questions in a set order. They are often closed-ended, featuring dichotomous (yes/no) or multiple-choice questions. While open-ended structured interviews exist, they are much less common. The types of questions asked make structured interviews a predominantly quantitative tool.

Asking set questions in a set order can help you see patterns among responses, and it allows you to easily compare responses between participants while keeping other factors constant. This can mitigate   research biases and lead to higher reliability and validity. However, structured interviews can be overly formal, as well as limited in scope and flexibility.

  • You feel very comfortable with your topic. This will help you formulate your questions most effectively.
  • You have limited time or resources. Structured interviews are a bit more straightforward to analyze because of their closed-ended nature, and can be a doable undertaking for an individual.
  • Your research question depends on holding environmental conditions between participants constant.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

  • Academic style
  • Vague sentences
  • Style consistency

See an example

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

Semi-structured interviews are a blend of structured and unstructured interviews. While the interviewer has a general plan for what they want to ask, the questions do not have to follow a particular phrasing or order.

Semi-structured interviews are often open-ended, allowing for flexibility, but follow a predetermined thematic framework, giving a sense of order. For this reason, they are often considered “the best of both worlds.”

However, if the questions differ substantially between participants, it can be challenging to look for patterns, lessening the generalizability and validity of your results.

  • You have prior interview experience. It’s easier than you think to accidentally ask a leading question when coming up with questions on the fly. Overall, spontaneous questions are much more difficult than they may seem.
  • Your research question is exploratory in nature. The answers you receive can help guide your future research.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview. The questions and the order in which they are asked are not set. Instead, the interview can proceed more spontaneously, based on the participant’s previous answers.

Unstructured interviews are by definition open-ended. This flexibility can help you gather detailed information on your topic, while still allowing you to observe patterns between participants.

However, so much flexibility means that they can be very challenging to conduct properly. You must be very careful not to ask leading questions, as biased responses can lead to lower reliability or even invalidate your research.

  • You have a solid background in your research topic and have conducted interviews before.
  • Your research question is exploratory in nature, and you are seeking descriptive data that will deepen and contextualize your initial hypotheses.
  • Your research necessitates forming a deeper connection with your participants, encouraging them to feel comfortable revealing their true opinions and emotions.

A focus group brings together a group of participants to answer questions on a topic of interest in a moderated setting. Focus groups are qualitative in nature and often study the group’s dynamic and body language in addition to their answers. Responses can guide future research on consumer products and services, human behavior, or controversial topics.

Focus groups can provide more nuanced and unfiltered feedback than individual interviews and are easier to organize than experiments or large surveys . However, their small size leads to low external validity and the temptation as a researcher to “cherry-pick” responses that fit your hypotheses.

  • Your research focuses on the dynamics of group discussion or real-time responses to your topic.
  • Your questions are complex and rooted in feelings, opinions, and perceptions that cannot be answered with a “yes” or “no.”
  • Your topic is exploratory in nature, and you are seeking information that will help you uncover new questions or future research ideas.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Depending on the type of interview you are conducting, your questions will differ in style, phrasing, and intention. Structured interview questions are set and precise, while the other types of interviews allow for more open-endedness and flexibility.

Here are some examples.

  • Semi-structured
  • Unstructured
  • Focus group
  • Do you like dogs? Yes/No
  • Do you associate dogs with feeling: happy; somewhat happy; neutral; somewhat unhappy; unhappy
  • If yes, name one attribute of dogs that you like.
  • If no, name one attribute of dogs that you don’t like.
  • What feelings do dogs bring out in you?
  • When you think more deeply about this, what experiences would you say your feelings are rooted in?

Interviews are a great research tool. They allow you to gather rich information and draw more detailed conclusions than other research methods, taking into consideration nonverbal cues, off-the-cuff reactions, and emotional responses.

However, they can also be time-consuming and deceptively challenging to conduct properly. Smaller sample sizes can cause their validity and reliability to suffer, and there is an inherent risk of interviewer effect arising from accidentally leading questions.

Here are some advantages and disadvantages of each type of interview that can help you decide if you’d like to utilize this research method.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

  • Student’s  t -distribution
  • Normal distribution
  • Null and Alternative Hypotheses
  • Chi square tests
  • Confidence interval
  • Quartiles & Quantiles
  • Cluster sampling
  • Stratified sampling
  • Data cleansing
  • Reproducibility vs Replicability
  • Peer review
  • Prospective cohort study

Research bias

  • Implicit bias
  • Cognitive bias
  • Placebo effect
  • Hawthorne effect
  • Hindsight bias
  • Affect heuristic
  • Social desirability bias

The four most common types of interviews are:

  • Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order. 
  • Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
  • Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
  • Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.

There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favorably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behavior accordingly.

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest. It is one of 4 types of interviews .

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/interviews-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Tegan George

Other students also liked, unstructured interview | definition, guide & examples, structured interview | definition, guide & examples, semi-structured interview | definition, guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Introduction to Research Methods

6 qualitative research and interviews.

So we’ve described doing a survey and collecting quantitative data. But not all questions can best be answered by a survey. A survey is great for understanding what people think (for example), but not why they think what they do. If your research is intending to understand the underlying motivations or reasons behind peoples actions, or to build a deeper understanding on the background of a subject, an interview may be the more appropriate data collection method.

Interviews are a method of data collection that consist of two or more people exchanging information through a structured process of questions and answers. Questions are designed by the researcher to thoughtfully collect in-depth information on a topic or set of topics as related to the central research question. Interviews typically occur in-person, although good interviews can also be conducted remotely via the phone or video conferencing. Unlike surveys, interviews give the opportunity to ask follow-up questions and thoughtfully engage with participants on the spot (rather than the anonymous and impartial format of survey research).

And surveys can be used in qualitative or quantitative research – though they’re more typically a qualitative technique. In-depth interviews , containing open-ended questions and structured by an interview guide . One can also do a standardized interview with closed-ended questions (i.e. answer options) that are structured by an interview schedule as part of quantitative research. While these are called interviews they’re far closer to surveys, so we wont cover them again in this chapter. The terms used for in-depth interviews we’ll cover in the next section.

6.1 Interviews

In-depth interviews allow participants to describe experiences in their own words (a primary strength of the interview format). Strong in-depth interviews will include many open-ended questions that allow participants to respond in their own words, share new ideas, and lead the conversation in different directions. The purpose of open-ended questions and in-depth interviews is to hear as much as possible in the person’s own voice, to collect new information and ideas, and to achieve a level of depth not possible in surveys or most other forms of data collection.

Typically, an interview guide is used to create a soft structure for the conversation and is an important preparation tool for the researcher. You can not go into an interview unprepared and just “wing it”; what the interview guide allows you to do is map out a framework, order of topics, and may include specific questions to use during the interview. Generally, the interview guide is thought of as just that — a guide to use in order to keep the interview focused. It is not set in stone and a skilled researcher can change the order of questions or topics in an interviews based on the organic conversation flow.

Depending on the experience and skill level of the researcher, an interview guide can be as simple as a list of topics to cover. However, for consistency and quality of research, the interviewer may want to take the time to at least practice writing out questions in advance to ensure that phrasing and word choices are as clear, objective, and focused as possible. It’s worth remembering that working out the wording of questions in advance allows researchers to ensure more consistency across interview. The interview guide below, taken from the wonderful and free textbook Principles of Sociological Inquiry , shows an interview guide that just has topics.

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

Alternatively, you can use a more detailed guide that lists out possible questions, as shown below. A more detailed guide is probably better for an interviewer that has less experience, or is just beginning to work on a given topic.

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

The purpose of an interview guide is to help ask effective questions and to support the process of acquiring the best possible data for your research. Topics and questions should be organized thematically, and in a natural progression that will allow the conversation to flow and deepen throughout the course of the interview. Often, researchers will attempt to memorize or partially memorize the interview guide, in order to be more fully present with the participant during the conversation.

6.2 Asking good Questions

Remember, the purposes of interviews is to go more in-depth with an individual than is possible with a generalized survey. For this reason, it is important to use the guide as a starting point but not to be overly tethered to it during the actual interview process. You may get stuck when respondents give you shorter answers than you expect, or don’t provide the type of depth that you need for your research. Often, you may want to probe for more specifics. Think about using follow up questions like “How does/did that affect you?” or “How does X make you feel?” and “Tell me about a time where X…”

For example, if I was researching the relationship between pets and mental health, some strong open-ended questions might be: * How does your pet typically make you feel when you wake up in the morning? * How does your pet generally affect your mood when you arrive home in the evening? * Tell me about a time when your pet had a significant impact on your emotional state.

Questions framed in this manner leave plenty of room for the respondent to answer in their own words, as opposed to leading and/or truncated questions, such as: * Does being with your pet make you happy? * After a bad day, how much does seeing your pet improve your mood? * Tell me about how important your pet is to your mental health.

These questions assume outcomes and will not result in high quality research. Researchers should always avoid asking leading questions that give away an expected answer or suggest particular responses. For instance, if I ask “we need to spend more on public schools, don’t you think?” the respondent is more likely to agree regardless of their own thoughts. Some wont, but humans generally have a strong natural desire to be agreeable. That’s why leaving your questions neutral and open so that respondents can speak to their experiences and views is critical.

6.3 Analyzing Interview Data

Writing good questions and interviewing respondents are just the first steps of the interview process. After these stages, the researcher still has a lot of work to do to collect usable data from the interview. The researcher must spend time coding and analyzing the interview to retrieve this data. Just doing an interview wont produce data. Think about how many conversations you have everyday, and none of those are leaving you swimming in data.

Hopefully you can record your interviews. Recording your interviews will allow you the opportunity to transcribe them word for word later. If you can’t record the interview you’ll need to take detailed notes so that you can reconstruct what you heard later. Do not trust yourself to “just remember” the conversation. You’re collecting data, precious data that you’re spending time and energy to collect. Treat it as important and valuable. Remember our description of the methodology section from Chapter 2, you need to maintain a chain of custody on your data. If you just remembered the interview, you could be accused of making up the results. Your interview notes and the recording become part of that chain of custody to prove to others that your interviews were real and that your results are accurate.

Assuming you recorded your interview, the first step in the analysis process is transcribing the interview. A transcription is a written record of every word in an interview. Transcriptions can either be completed by the researcher or by a hired worker, though it is good practice for the researcher to transcribe the interview him or herself. Researchers should keep the following points in mind regarding transcriptions: * The interview should take place in a quiet location with minimal background noise to produce a clear recording; * Transcribing interviews is a time-consuming process and may take two to three times longer than the actual interview; * Transcriptions provide a more precise record of the interview than hand written notes and allow the interviewer to focus during the interview.

After transcribing the interview, the next step is to analyze the responses. Coding is the main form of analysis used for interviews and involves studying a transcription to identify important themes. These themes are categorized into codes, which are words or phrases that denote an idea.

You’ll typically being with several codes in mind that are generated by key ideas you week seeking in the questions, but you can also being by using open coding to understand the results. An open coding process involves reading through the transcript multiple times and paying close attention to each line of the text to discover noteworthy concepts. During the open coding process, the researcher keeps an open mind to find any codes that may be relevant to the research topic.

After the open coding process is complete, focused coding can begin. Focused coding takes a closer look at the notes compiled during the open coding stage to merge common codes and define what the codes mean in the context of the research project.

Imagine a researcher is conducting interviews to learn about various people’s experiences of childhood in New Orleans. The following example shows several codes that this researcher extrapolated from an interview with one of their subjects.

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

6.4 Using interview data

The next chapter will address ways to identify people to interview, but most of the remainder of the book will address how to analyze quantitative data. That shouldn’t be taken as a sign that quantitative data is better, or that it’s easier to use interview data. Because in an interview the researcher must interpret the words of others it is often more challenging to identify your findings and clearly answer your research question. However, quantitative data is more common, and there are more different things you can do with it, so we spend a lot of the textbook focusing on it.

I’ll work through one more example of using interview data though. It takes a lot of practice to be a good and skilled interviewer. What I show below is a brief excerpt of an interview I did, and how that data was used in a resulting paper I wrote. These aren’t the only way you can use interview data, but it’s an example of what the intermediary and final product might look like.

The overall project these are drawn from was concerned with minor league baseball stadiums, but the specific part I’m pulling from here was studying the decline and rejuvenation of downtown around those stadiums in several cities. You’ll see that I’m using the words of the respondent fairly directly, because that’s my data. But I’m not just relying on one respondent and trusting them, I did a few dozen interviews in order to understand the commonalities in people’s perspectives to build a narrative around my research question.

Excerpt from Notes

Excerpt from Notes

Excerpt from Resulting Paper

Excerpt from Resulting Paper

How many interviews are necessary? It actually doesn’t take many. What you want to observe in your interviews is theoretical saturation , where the codes you use in the transcript begin to appear across conversations and groups. If different people disagree that’s fine, but what you want to understand is the commonalities across peoples perspectives. Most research on the subject says that with 8 interviews you’ll typically start to see a decline in new information gathered. That doesn’t mean you won’t get new words , but you’ll stop hearing completely unique perspectives or gain novel insights. At that point, where you’ve ‘heard it all before’ you can stop, because you’ve probably identified the answer to the questions you were trying to research.

6.5 Ensuring Anonymity

One significant ethical concern with interviews, that also applies to surveys, is making sure that respondents maintain anonymity. In either form of data collection you may be asking respondents deeply personal questions, that if exposed may cause legal, personal, or professional harm. Notice that in the excerpt of the paper above the respondents are only identified by an id I assigned (Louisville D) and their career, rather than their name. I can only include the excerpt of the interview notes above because there are no details that might lead to them being identified.

You may want to report details about a person to contextualize the data you gathered, but you should always ensure that no one can be identified from your research. For instance, if you were doing research on racism at large companies, you may want to preface people’s comments by their race, as there is a good chance that white and minority employees would feel differently about the issues. However, if you preface someones comments by saying they’re a minority manager, that may violate their anonymity. Even if you don’t state what company you did interviews with, that may be enough detail for their co-workers to identify them if there are few minority managers at the company. As such, always think long and hard about whether there is any way that the participation of respondents may be exposed.

6.6 Why not both?

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

We’ve discussed surveys and interviews as different methods the last two chapters, but they can also complement each other.

For instance, let’s say you’re curious to study people who change opinions on abortion, either going from support to opposition or vice versa. You could use a survey to understand the prevalence of changing opinions, i.e. what percentage of people in your city have changed their views. That would help to establish whether this is a prominent issue, or whether it’s a rare phenomenon. But it would be difficult to understand from the survey what makes people change their views. You could add an open ended question for anyone that said they changed their opinion, but many people won’t respond and few will provide the level of detail necessary to understand their motivations. Interviews with people that have changed their opinions would give you an opportunity to explore how their experiences and beliefs have changed in combination with their views towards abortion.

6.7 Summary

In the last two chapters we’ve discussed the two most prominent methods of data collection in the social sciences: surveys and interviews. What we haven’t discussed though is how to identify the people you’ll collect data from; that’s called a sampling strategy. In the next chapter

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Published: 05 October 2018

Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age

  • P. Gill 1 &
  • J. Baillie 2  

British Dental Journal volume  225 ,  pages 668–672 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

44 Citations

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

Highlights that qualitative research is used increasingly in dentistry. Interviews and focus groups remain the most common qualitative methods of data collection.

Suggests the advent of digital technologies has transformed how qualitative research can now be undertaken.

Suggests interviews and focus groups can offer significant, meaningful insight into participants' experiences, beliefs and perspectives, which can help to inform developments in dental practice.

Qualitative research is used increasingly in dentistry, due to its potential to provide meaningful, in-depth insights into participants' experiences, perspectives, beliefs and behaviours. These insights can subsequently help to inform developments in dental practice and further related research. The most common methods of data collection used in qualitative research are interviews and focus groups. While these are primarily conducted face-to-face, the ongoing evolution of digital technologies, such as video chat and online forums, has further transformed these methods of data collection. This paper therefore discusses interviews and focus groups in detail, outlines how they can be used in practice, how digital technologies can further inform the data collection process, and what these methods can offer dentistry.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

Human languages with greater information density have higher communication speed but lower conversation breadth

Pedro Aceves & James A. Evans

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

Adults who microdose psychedelics report health related motivations and lower levels of anxiety and depression compared to non-microdosers

Joseph M. Rootman, Pamela Kryskow, … Zach Walsh

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

Online images amplify gender bias

Douglas Guilbeault, Solène Delecourt, … Ethan Nadler

Introduction

Traditionally, research in dentistry has primarily been quantitative in nature. 1 However, in recent years, there has been a growing interest in qualitative research within the profession, due to its potential to further inform developments in practice, policy, education and training. Consequently, in 2008, the British Dental Journal (BDJ) published a four paper qualitative research series, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 to help increase awareness and understanding of this particular methodological approach.

Since the papers were originally published, two scoping reviews have demonstrated the ongoing proliferation in the use of qualitative research within the field of oral healthcare. 1 , 6 To date, the original four paper series continue to be well cited and two of the main papers remain widely accessed among the BDJ readership. 2 , 3 The potential value of well-conducted qualitative research to evidence-based practice is now also widely recognised by service providers, policy makers, funding bodies and those who commission, support and use healthcare research.

Besides increasing standalone use, qualitative methods are now also routinely incorporated into larger mixed method study designs, such as clinical trials, as they can offer additional, meaningful insights into complex problems that simply could not be provided by quantitative methods alone. Qualitative methods can also be used to further facilitate in-depth understanding of important aspects of clinical trial processes, such as recruitment. For example, Ellis et al . investigated why edentulous older patients, dissatisfied with conventional dentures, decline implant treatment, despite its established efficacy, and frequently refuse to participate in related randomised clinical trials, even when financial constraints are removed. 7 Through the use of focus groups in Canada and the UK, the authors found that fears of pain and potential complications, along with perceived embarrassment, exacerbated by age, are common reasons why older patients typically refuse dental implants. 7

The last decade has also seen further developments in qualitative research, due to the ongoing evolution of digital technologies. These developments have transformed how researchers can access and share information, communicate and collaborate, recruit and engage participants, collect and analyse data and disseminate and translate research findings. 8 Where appropriate, such technologies are therefore capable of extending and enhancing how qualitative research is undertaken. 9 For example, it is now possible to collect qualitative data via instant messaging, email or online/video chat, using appropriate online platforms.

These innovative approaches to research are therefore cost-effective, convenient, reduce geographical constraints and are often useful for accessing 'hard to reach' participants (for example, those who are immobile or socially isolated). 8 , 9 However, digital technologies are still relatively new and constantly evolving and therefore present a variety of pragmatic and methodological challenges. Furthermore, given their very nature, their use in many qualitative studies and/or with certain participant groups may be inappropriate and should therefore always be carefully considered. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed explication regarding the use of digital technologies in qualitative research, insight is provided into how such technologies can be used to facilitate the data collection process in interviews and focus groups.

In light of such developments, it is perhaps therefore timely to update the main paper 3 of the original BDJ series. As with the previous publications, this paper has been purposely written in an accessible style, to enhance readability, particularly for those who are new to qualitative research. While the focus remains on the most common qualitative methods of data collection – interviews and focus groups – appropriate revisions have been made to provide a novel perspective, and should therefore be helpful to those who would like to know more about qualitative research. This paper specifically focuses on undertaking qualitative research with adult participants only.

Overview of qualitative research

Qualitative research is an approach that focuses on people and their experiences, behaviours and opinions. 10 , 11 The qualitative researcher seeks to answer questions of 'how' and 'why', providing detailed insight and understanding, 11 which quantitative methods cannot reach. 12 Within qualitative research, there are distinct methodologies influencing how the researcher approaches the research question, data collection and data analysis. 13 For example, phenomenological studies focus on the lived experience of individuals, explored through their description of the phenomenon. Ethnographic studies explore the culture of a group and typically involve the use of multiple methods to uncover the issues. 14

While methodology is the 'thinking tool', the methods are the 'doing tools'; 13 the ways in which data are collected and analysed. There are multiple qualitative data collection methods, including interviews, focus groups, observations, documentary analysis, participant diaries, photography and videography. Two of the most commonly used qualitative methods are interviews and focus groups, which are explored in this article. The data generated through these methods can be analysed in one of many ways, according to the methodological approach chosen. A common approach is thematic data analysis, involving the identification of themes and subthemes across the data set. Further information on approaches to qualitative data analysis has been discussed elsewhere. 1

Qualitative research is an evolving and adaptable approach, used by different disciplines for different purposes. Traditionally, qualitative data, specifically interviews, focus groups and observations, have been collected face-to-face with participants. In more recent years, digital technologies have contributed to the ongoing evolution of qualitative research. Digital technologies offer researchers different ways of recruiting participants and collecting data, and offer participants opportunities to be involved in research that is not necessarily face-to-face.

Research interviews are a fundamental qualitative research method 15 and are utilised across methodological approaches. Interviews enable the researcher to learn in depth about the perspectives, experiences, beliefs and motivations of the participant. 3 , 16 Examples include, exploring patients' perspectives of fear/anxiety triggers in dental treatment, 17 patients' experiences of oral health and diabetes, 18 and dental students' motivations for their choice of career. 19

Interviews may be structured, semi-structured or unstructured, 3 according to the purpose of the study, with less structured interviews facilitating a more in depth and flexible interviewing approach. 20 Structured interviews are similar to verbal questionnaires and are used if the researcher requires clarification on a topic; however they produce less in-depth data about a participant's experience. 3 Unstructured interviews may be used when little is known about a topic and involves the researcher asking an opening question; 3 the participant then leads the discussion. 20 Semi-structured interviews are commonly used in healthcare research, enabling the researcher to ask predetermined questions, 20 while ensuring the participant discusses issues they feel are important.

Interviews can be undertaken face-to-face or using digital methods when the researcher and participant are in different locations. Audio-recording the interview, with the consent of the participant, is essential for all interviews regardless of the medium as it enables accurate transcription; the process of turning the audio file into a word-for-word transcript. This transcript is the data, which the researcher then analyses according to the chosen approach.

Types of interview

Qualitative studies often utilise one-to-one, face-to-face interviews with research participants. This involves arranging a mutually convenient time and place to meet the participant, signing a consent form and audio-recording the interview. However, digital technologies have expanded the potential for interviews in research, enabling individuals to participate in qualitative research regardless of location.

Telephone interviews can be a useful alternative to face-to-face interviews and are commonly used in qualitative research. They enable participants from different geographical areas to participate and may be less onerous for participants than meeting a researcher in person. 15 A qualitative study explored patients' perspectives of dental implants and utilised telephone interviews due to the quality of the data that could be yielded. 21 The researcher needs to consider how they will audio record the interview, which can be facilitated by purchasing a recorder that connects directly to the telephone. One potential disadvantage of telephone interviews is the inability of the interviewer and researcher to see each other. This is resolved using software for audio and video calls online – such as Skype – to conduct interviews with participants in qualitative studies. Advantages of this approach include being able to see the participant if video calls are used, enabling observation of non-verbal communication, and the software can be free to use. However, participants are required to have a device and internet connection, as well as being computer literate, potentially limiting who can participate in the study. One qualitative study explored the role of dental hygienists in reducing oral health disparities in Canada. 22 The researcher conducted interviews using Skype, which enabled dental hygienists from across Canada to be interviewed within the research budget, accommodating the participants' schedules. 22

A less commonly used approach to qualitative interviews is the use of social virtual worlds. A qualitative study accessed a social virtual world – Second Life – to explore the health literacy skills of individuals who use social virtual worlds to access health information. 23 The researcher created an avatar and interview room, and undertook interviews with participants using voice and text methods. 23 This approach to recruitment and data collection enables individuals from diverse geographical locations to participate, while remaining anonymous if they wish. Furthermore, for interviews conducted using text methods, transcription of the interview is not required as the researcher can save the written conversation with the participant, with the participant's consent. However, the researcher and participant need to be familiar with how the social virtual world works to engage in an interview this way.

Conducting an interview

Ensuring informed consent before any interview is a fundamental aspect of the research process. Participants in research must be afforded autonomy and respect; consent should be informed and voluntary. 24 Individuals should have the opportunity to read an information sheet about the study, ask questions, understand how their data will be stored and used, and know that they are free to withdraw at any point without reprisal. The qualitative researcher should take written consent before undertaking the interview. In a face-to-face interview, this is straightforward: the researcher and participant both sign copies of the consent form, keeping one each. However, this approach is less straightforward when the researcher and participant do not meet in person. A recent protocol paper outlined an approach for taking consent for telephone interviews, which involved: audio recording the participant agreeing to each point on the consent form; the researcher signing the consent form and keeping a copy; and posting a copy to the participant. 25 This process could be replicated in other interview studies using digital methods.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using face-to-face and digital methods for research interviews. Ultimately, for both approaches, the quality of the interview is determined by the researcher. 16 Appropriate training and preparation are thus required. Healthcare professionals can use their interpersonal communication skills when undertaking a research interview, particularly questioning, listening and conversing. 3 However, the purpose of an interview is to gain information about the study topic, 26 rather than offering help and advice. 3 The researcher therefore needs to listen attentively to participants, enabling them to describe their experience without interruption. 3 The use of active listening skills also help to facilitate the interview. 14 Spradley outlined elements and strategies for research interviews, 27 which are a useful guide for qualitative researchers:

Greeting and explaining the project/interview

Asking descriptive (broad), structural (explore response to descriptive) and contrast (difference between) questions

Asymmetry between the researcher and participant talking

Expressing interest and cultural ignorance

Repeating, restating and incorporating the participant's words when asking questions

Creating hypothetical situations

Asking friendly questions

Knowing when to leave.

For semi-structured interviews, a topic guide (also called an interview schedule) is used to guide the content of the interview – an example of a topic guide is outlined in Box 1 . The topic guide, usually based on the research questions, existing literature and, for healthcare professionals, their clinical experience, is developed by the research team. The topic guide should include open ended questions that elicit in-depth information, and offer participants the opportunity to talk about issues important to them. This is vital in qualitative research where the researcher is interested in exploring the experiences and perspectives of participants. It can be useful for qualitative researchers to pilot the topic guide with the first participants, 10 to ensure the questions are relevant and understandable, and amending the questions if required.

Regardless of the medium of interview, the researcher must consider the setting of the interview. For face-to-face interviews, this could be in the participant's home, in an office or another mutually convenient location. A quiet location is preferable to promote confidentiality, enable the researcher and participant to concentrate on the conversation, and to facilitate accurate audio-recording of the interview. For interviews using digital methods the same principles apply: a quiet, private space where the researcher and participant feel comfortable and confident to participate in an interview.

Box 1: Example of a topic guide

Study focus: Parents' experiences of brushing their child's (aged 0–5) teeth

1. Can you tell me about your experience of cleaning your child's teeth?

How old was your child when you started cleaning their teeth?

Why did you start cleaning their teeth at that point?

How often do you brush their teeth?

What do you use to brush their teeth and why?

2. Could you explain how you find cleaning your child's teeth?

Do you find anything difficult?

What makes cleaning their teeth easier for you?

3. How has your experience of cleaning your child's teeth changed over time?

Has it become easier or harder?

Have you changed how often and how you clean their teeth? If so, why?

4. Could you describe how your child finds having their teeth cleaned?

What do they enjoy about having their teeth cleaned?

Is there anything they find upsetting about having their teeth cleaned?

5. Where do you look for information/advice about cleaning your child's teeth?

What did your health visitor tell you about cleaning your child's teeth? (If anything)

What has the dentist told you about caring for your child's teeth? (If visited)

Have any family members given you advice about how to clean your child's teeth? If so, what did they tell you? Did you follow their advice?

6. Is there anything else you would like to discuss about this?

Focus groups

A focus group is a moderated group discussion on a pre-defined topic, for research purposes. 28 , 29 While not aligned to a particular qualitative methodology (for example, grounded theory or phenomenology) as such, focus groups are used increasingly in healthcare research, as they are useful for exploring collective perspectives, attitudes, behaviours and experiences. Consequently, they can yield rich, in-depth data and illuminate agreement and inconsistencies 28 within and, where appropriate, between groups. Examples include public perceptions of dental implants and subsequent impact on help-seeking and decision making, 30 and general dental practitioners' views on patient safety in dentistry. 31

Focus groups can be used alone or in conjunction with other methods, such as interviews or observations, and can therefore help to confirm, extend or enrich understanding and provide alternative insights. 28 The social interaction between participants often results in lively discussion and can therefore facilitate the collection of rich, meaningful data. However, they are complex to organise and manage, due to the number of participants, and may also be inappropriate for exploring particularly sensitive issues that many participants may feel uncomfortable about discussing in a group environment.

Focus groups are primarily undertaken face-to-face but can now also be undertaken online, using appropriate technologies such as email, bulletin boards, online research communities, chat rooms, discussion forums, social media and video conferencing. 32 Using such technologies, data collection can also be synchronous (for example, online discussions in 'real time') or, unlike traditional face-to-face focus groups, asynchronous (for example, online/email discussions in 'non-real time'). While many of the fundamental principles of focus group research are the same, regardless of how they are conducted, a number of subtle nuances are associated with the online medium. 32 Some of which are discussed further in the following sections.

Focus group considerations

Some key considerations associated with face-to-face focus groups are: how many participants are required; should participants within each group know each other (or not) and how many focus groups are needed within a single study? These issues are much debated and there is no definitive answer. However, the number of focus groups required will largely depend on the topic area, the depth and breadth of data needed, the desired level of participation required 29 and the necessity (or not) for data saturation.

The optimum group size is around six to eight participants (excluding researchers) but can work effectively with between three and 14 participants. 3 If the group is too small, it may limit discussion, but if it is too large, it may become disorganised and difficult to manage. It is, however, prudent to over-recruit for a focus group by approximately two to three participants, to allow for potential non-attenders. For many researchers, particularly novice researchers, group size may also be informed by pragmatic considerations, such as the type of study, resources available and moderator experience. 28 Similar size and mix considerations exist for online focus groups. Typically, synchronous online focus groups will have around three to eight participants but, as the discussion does not happen simultaneously, asynchronous groups may have as many as 10–30 participants. 33

The topic area and potential group interaction should guide group composition considerations. Pre-existing groups, where participants know each other (for example, work colleagues) may be easier to recruit, have shared experiences and may enjoy a familiarity, which facilitates discussion and/or the ability to challenge each other courteously. 3 However, if there is a potential power imbalance within the group or if existing group norms and hierarchies may adversely affect the ability of participants to speak freely, then 'stranger groups' (that is, where participants do not already know each other) may be more appropriate. 34 , 35

Focus group management

Face-to-face focus groups should normally be conducted by two researchers; a moderator and an observer. 28 The moderator facilitates group discussion, while the observer typically monitors group dynamics, behaviours, non-verbal cues, seating arrangements and speaking order, which is essential for transcription and analysis. The same principles of informed consent, as discussed in the interview section, also apply to focus groups, regardless of medium. However, the consent process for online discussions will probably be managed somewhat differently. For example, while an appropriate participant information leaflet (and consent form) would still be required, the process is likely to be managed electronically (for example, via email) and would need to specifically address issues relating to technology (for example, anonymity and use, storage and access to online data). 32

The venue in which a face to face focus group is conducted should be of a suitable size, private, quiet, free from distractions and in a collectively convenient location. It should also be conducted at a time appropriate for participants, 28 as this is likely to promote attendance. As with interviews, the same ethical considerations apply (as discussed earlier). However, online focus groups may present additional ethical challenges associated with issues such as informed consent, appropriate access and secure data storage. Further guidance can be found elsewhere. 8 , 32

Before the focus group commences, the researchers should establish rapport with participants, as this will help to put them at ease and result in a more meaningful discussion. Consequently, researchers should introduce themselves, provide further clarity about the study and how the process will work in practice and outline the 'ground rules'. Ground rules are designed to assist, not hinder, group discussion and typically include: 3 , 28 , 29

Discussions within the group are confidential to the group

Only one person can speak at a time

All participants should have sufficient opportunity to contribute

There should be no unnecessary interruptions while someone is speaking

Everyone can be expected to be listened to and their views respected

Challenging contrary opinions is appropriate, but ridiculing is not.

Moderating a focus group requires considered management and good interpersonal skills to help guide the discussion and, where appropriate, keep it sufficiently focused. Avoid, therefore, participating, leading, expressing personal opinions or correcting participants' knowledge 3 , 28 as this may bias the process. A relaxed, interested demeanour will also help participants to feel comfortable and promote candid discourse. Moderators should also prevent the discussion being dominated by any one person, ensure differences of opinions are discussed fairly and, if required, encourage reticent participants to contribute. 3 Asking open questions, reflecting on significant issues, inviting further debate, probing responses accordingly, and seeking further clarification, as and where appropriate, will help to obtain sufficient depth and insight into the topic area.

Moderating online focus groups requires comparable skills, particularly if the discussion is synchronous, as the discussion may be dominated by those who can type proficiently. 36 It is therefore important that sufficient time and respect is accorded to those who may not be able to type as quickly. Asynchronous discussions are usually less problematic in this respect, as interactions are less instant. However, moderating an asynchronous discussion presents additional challenges, particularly if participants are geographically dispersed, as they may be online at different times. Consequently, the moderator will not always be present and the discussion may therefore need to occur over several days, which can be difficult to manage and facilitate and invariably requires considerable flexibility. 32 It is also worth recognising that establishing rapport with participants via online medium is often more challenging than via face-to-face and may therefore require additional time, skills, effort and consideration.

As with research interviews, focus groups should be guided by an appropriate interview schedule, as discussed earlier in the paper. For example, the schedule will usually be informed by the review of the literature and study aims, and will merely provide a topic guide to help inform subsequent discussions. To provide a verbatim account of the discussion, focus groups must be recorded, using an audio-recorder with a good quality multi-directional microphone. While videotaping is possible, some participants may find it obtrusive, 3 which may adversely affect group dynamics. The use (or not) of a video recorder, should therefore be carefully considered.

At the end of the focus group, a few minutes should be spent rounding up and reflecting on the discussion. 28 Depending on the topic area, it is possible that some participants may have revealed deeply personal issues and may therefore require further help and support, such as a constructive debrief or possibly even referral on to a relevant third party. It is also possible that some participants may feel that the discussion did not adequately reflect their views and, consequently, may no longer wish to be associated with the study. 28 Such occurrences are likely to be uncommon, but should they arise, it is important to further discuss any concerns and, if appropriate, offer them the opportunity to withdraw (including any data relating to them) from the study. Immediately after the discussion, researchers should compile notes regarding thoughts and ideas about the focus group, which can assist with data analysis and, if appropriate, any further data collection.

Qualitative research is increasingly being utilised within dental research to explore the experiences, perspectives, motivations and beliefs of participants. The contributions of qualitative research to evidence-based practice are increasingly being recognised, both as standalone research and as part of larger mixed-method studies, including clinical trials. Interviews and focus groups remain commonly used data collection methods in qualitative research, and with the advent of digital technologies, their utilisation continues to evolve. However, digital methods of qualitative data collection present additional methodological, ethical and practical considerations, but also potentially offer considerable flexibility to participants and researchers. Consequently, regardless of format, qualitative methods have significant potential to inform important areas of dental practice, policy and further related research.

Gussy M, Dickson-Swift V, Adams J . A scoping review of qualitative research in peer-reviewed dental publications. Int J Dent Hygiene 2013; 11 : 174–179.

Article   Google Scholar  

Burnard P, Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Analysing and presenting qualitative data. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 429–432.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 291–295.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Conducting qualitative interviews with school children in dental research. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 371–374.

Stewart K, Gill P, Chadwick B, Treasure E . Qualitative research in dentistry. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 235–239.

Masood M, Thaliath E, Bower E, Newton J . An appraisal of the quality of published qualitative dental research. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011; 39 : 193–203.

Ellis J, Levine A, Bedos C et al. Refusal of implant supported mandibular overdentures by elderly patients. Gerodontology 2011; 28 : 62–68.

Macfarlane S, Bucknall T . Digital Technologies in Research. In Gerrish K, Lathlean J (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . 7th edition. pp. 71–86. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2015.

Google Scholar  

Lee R, Fielding N, Blank G . Online Research Methods in the Social Sciences: An Editorial Introduction. In Fielding N, Lee R, Blank G (editors) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . pp. 3–16. London: Sage Publications; 2016.

Creswell J . Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

Guest G, Namey E, Mitchell M . Qualitative research: Defining and designing In Guest G, Namey E, Mitchell M (editors) Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual For Applied Research . pp. 1–40. London: Sage Publications, 2013.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Pope C, Mays N . Qualitative research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311 : 42–45.

Giddings L, Grant B . A Trojan Horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Adv Nurs Sci 2007; 30 : 52–60.

Hammersley M, Atkinson P . Ethnography: Principles in Practice . London: Routledge, 1995.

Oltmann S . Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2016; 17 : Art. 15.

Patton M . Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.

Wang M, Vinall-Collier K, Csikar J, Douglas G . A qualitative study of patients' views of techniques to reduce dental anxiety. J Dent 2017; 66 : 45–51.

Lindenmeyer A, Bowyer V, Roscoe J, Dale J, Sutcliffe P . Oral health awareness and care preferences in patients with diabetes: a qualitative study. Fam Pract 2013; 30 : 113–118.

Gallagher J, Clarke W, Wilson N . Understanding the motivation: a qualitative study of dental students' choice of professional career. Eur J Dent Educ 2008; 12 : 89–98.

Tod A . Interviewing. In Gerrish K, Lacey A (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Grey E, Harcourt D, O'Sullivan D, Buchanan H, Kipatrick N . A qualitative study of patients' motivations and expectations for dental implants. Br Dent J 2013; 214 : 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.1178.

Farmer J, Peressini S, Lawrence H . Exploring the role of the dental hygienist in reducing oral health disparities in Canada: A qualitative study. Int J Dent Hygiene 2017; 10.1111/idh.12276.

McElhinney E, Cheater F, Kidd L . Undertaking qualitative health research in social virtual worlds. J Adv Nurs 2013; 70 : 1267–1275.

Health Research Authority. UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research. Available at https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/ (accessed September 2017).

Baillie J, Gill P, Courtenay P . Knowledge, understanding and experiences of peritonitis among patients, and their families, undertaking peritoneal dialysis: A mixed methods study protocol. J Adv Nurs 2017; 10.1111/jan.13400.

Kvale S . Interviews . Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 1996.

Spradley J . The Ethnographic Interview . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.

Goodman C, Evans C . Focus Groups. In Gerrish K, Lathlean J (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . pp. 401–412. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2015.

Shaha M, Wenzell J, Hill E . Planning and conducting focus group research with nurses. Nurse Res 2011; 18 : 77–87.

Wang G, Gao X, Edward C . Public perception of dental implants: a qualitative study. J Dent 2015; 43 : 798–805.

Bailey E . Contemporary views of dental practitioners' on patient safety. Br Dent J 2015; 219 : 535–540.

Abrams K, Gaiser T . Online Focus Groups. In Field N, Lee R, Blank G (editors) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . pp. 435–450. London: Sage Publications, 2016.

Poynter R . The Handbook of Online and Social Media Research . West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Kevern J, Webb C . Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education. Nurse Educ Today 2001; 21 : 323–333.

Kitzinger J, Barbour R . Introduction: The Challenge and Promise of Focus Groups. In Barbour R S K J (editor) Developing Focus Group Research . pp. 1–20. London: Sage Publications, 1999.

Krueger R, Casey M . Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Senior Lecturer (Adult Nursing), School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University,

Lecturer (Adult Nursing) and RCBC Wales Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University,

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Gill .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gill, P., Baillie, J. Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age. Br Dent J 225 , 668–672 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

Download citation

Accepted : 02 July 2018

Published : 05 October 2018

Issue Date : 12 October 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Translating brand reputation into equity from the stakeholder’s theory: an approach to value creation based on consumer’s perception & interactions.

  • Olukorede Adewole

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility (2024)

Perceptions and beliefs of community gatekeepers about genomic risk information in African cleft research

  • Abimbola M. Oladayo
  • Oluwakemi Odukoya
  • Azeez Butali

BMC Public Health (2024)

‘Baby mamas’ in Urban Ghana: an exploratory qualitative study on the factors influencing serial fathering among men in Accra, Ghana

  • Rosemond Akpene Hiadzi
  • Jemima Akweley Agyeman
  • Godwin Banafo Akrong

Reproductive Health (2023)

Revolutionising dental technologies: a qualitative study on dental technicians’ perceptions of Artificial intelligence integration

  • Galvin Sim Siang Lin
  • Yook Shiang Ng
  • Kah Hoay Chua

BMC Oral Health (2023)

The assessment and management of sesamoiditis: a focus group study of podiatrists in Aotearoa New Zealand

  • Preeti Kaur
  • Matthew R Carroll
  • Sarah Stewart

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research (2023)

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

  • Open access
  • Published: 21 February 2024

Fear of depression recurrence among individuals with remitted depression: a qualitative interview study

  • Stephanie T. Gumuchian 1 ,
  • Ariel Boyle 1 ,
  • Lori H. Hazel 1 &
  • Mark A. Ellenbogen 1  

BMC Psychiatry volume  24 , Article number:  152 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition and the largest contributor to disability worldwide. MDD is highly recurrent, yet little is known about the mechanisms that occur following a Major Depressive Episode (MDE) and underlie recurrence. We explored the concept of fear of depression recurrence (FoDR) and its impact on daily functioning among individuals in remission from MDD.

30 participants (83% female; 37% White; M age = 27.7, SD = 8.96) underwent semi-structured qualitative interviews. The interviews explored participants’ experiences of FoDR including the frequency, severity, content, triggers, and impact of fears and associated coping strategies. We used content analysis to analyze the transcriptions.

Most participants (73%) reported having FoDR, with varying frequency, severity, and duration of fears. The triggers and content of participants’ fears often mirrored the symptoms (e.g., low mood, anhedonia) and consequences (e.g., job loss, social withdrawal) endured during past MDEs. Some participants reported a minimal impact of FoDR on daily functioning, whereas others reported a positive (e.g., personal growth) or negative (e.g., increased anxiety) influence.

Limitations

Our sample size did not allow for explorations of differences in FoDR across unique MDD subtypes or sociocultural factors.

Conclusions

The concept of FoDR may present a window into understanding the unique cognitive and behavioural changes that occur following MDD remission and underlie depression recurrence. Future research should aim to identify underlying individual differences and characteristics of the disorder that may influence the presence and impact of FoDR. Finally, a FoDR measure should be developed so that associations between FoDR and recurrence risk, depressive symptoms, and other indices of functioning can be determined.

Peer Review reports

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a debilitating psychiatric condition and the largest contributor to disability worldwide [ 1 ]. It is considered to have the highest lifetime prevalence among psychiatric conditions, affecting over 300 million people [ 2 ]. MDD is considered a chronic condition as approximately 50–85% of individuals who have had at least one Major Depressive Episode (MDE) experience a second, with this percentage increasing for individuals with multiple past MDEs [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Despite mounting evidence of MDD’s high recurrence, little is known about the predictors and mechanisms underlying recurrence.

There are several limitations to research in MDD that challenge our ability to discern the conditions that lead to subsequent MDEs. These concerns include overreliance on cross-sectional methodologies, a lack of consensus on what constitutes recurrence, and grouping all individuals with MDD together instead of differentiating subgroups using key characteristics of the disorder (e.g., single verse recurrent episodes) [ 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. The existing literature focuses on identifying individual factors (e.g., genetic vulnerability) and evaluating the role of treatment in predicting future MDEs [ 3 , 9 ]. Research on recurrence risk factors have identified that residual symptoms, anxiety disorders, childhood maltreatment, and previous MDEs are some of the strongest prognostic factors in recurrent depression [ 10 ]. A review exploring prospective biomarkers (e.g., hormones, oxidative stress) in MDD recurrence found that cortisol significantly increased odds for MDD onset and relapse [ 6 ]. These indicators, however, do not provide insight into the cognitive and behavioral changes that occur following MDE remission and underlie future recurrence [ 7 ].

Individuals may behave differently following an MDE out of fear of future relapse, such as reducing risk-taking and being hypervigilant to symptom changes [ 11 ]. Fear of illness recurrence (FIR) is defined as concern, fear, or worry that one’s illness will eventually return [ 12 ]. FIR has been widely studied in cancer and other chronic health conditions and is associated with greater avoidance of illness reminders (e.g., medical appointments), disregarding symptom changes, and social withdrawal [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. FIR in cancer is associated with lower mood, greater depression and anxiety, reduced quality of life, and lower engagement in health behaviours [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].

Research on FIR in psychiatric conditions is scarce. Studies of psychotic disorders have reported that FIR significantly predicted future relapse and was associated with increased positive psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, and greater use of maladaptive coping strategies (e.g., reassurance seeking) [ 21 , 22 ]. In MDD, some individuals have endorsed FIR following the discontinuation of antidepressants [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Others have reported that the fear surrounding experiencing another MDE influenced participant’s decision making and willingness to take risks [ 11 ]. To our knowledge, no studies have focused exclusively on understanding fear of depression recurrence (FoDR), defined in this study as having concerns, fears, or worries that one’s symptoms of depression will return or worsen at a future time.

Although an exploratory study, we aimed to investigate whether remitted depressed individuals experience FoDR, and if so, to explore the influence of these fears on daily functioning including coping, engagement in specific behaviours (e.g., avoidance, help-seeking), changes to cognitions and emotional states, and social patterns (e.g., withdrawal, seeking professional help). Exploring the concept of FoDR and its potential relationship to relapse, depression symptoms, and other indices of functioning may provide a better understanding of the unique cognitive and behavioural changes that occur following remission from an MDE and underlie depression recurrence. If found to influence important indicators of recurrence in MDD, FoDR may represent a novel phenomenon that can be targeted by future prevention and intervention efforts in MDD.

The present study

This qualitative inquiry aimed to gain a better understanding of individuals’ experiences of FoDR. We used a social constructivist framework to guide this phenomenological study, given the important influence of culture, past experiences, social interaction, and context on an individuals’ beliefs about, and experiences with, MDD [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. We conducted semi-structured interviews to: [ 1 ] identify whether remitted depressed individuals experience FoDR and evaluate the severity, frequency, triggers, and content of these fears; [ 2 ] explore how people respond to and cope with these fears; and [ 3 ] understand the impact of FoDR on daily functioning.

This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Concordia University in Montréal, Québec, Canada (REB# 30013399) and pre-registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GQR2S ). The pre-planned methodology was designed and reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist (COREQ) [ 29 ] and the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) [ 30 ].

Participants and recruitment

English-speaking adults above the age of 18 years and in remission from MDD were recruited. First, participants who had previously completed a study in our lab were recruited via email. Second, we recruited participants from Québec institutions and mental health organizations using recruitment advertisements posted on social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook). As described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM, 5th Edition), participants were considered remitted from MDD if they reported a history of MDD and had been symptom-free for a consecutive period of at least two months [ 31 ]. Exclusion criteria included having [ 1 ] a major chronic medical illness highly associated with one’s past MDE; [ 2 ] a current and/or lifetime history of bipolar disorder I or II, a psychotic disorder (except if part of MDD), or a pervasive developmental disorder; and [ 3 ] a past or current comorbid Axis-1 disorder deemed to be one’s primary mental health diagnosis other than MDD.

Materials and measures

Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Version 7.0.2 (MINI) [ 32 , 33 ]. The MINI is a structured diagnostic interview used to assess DSM-5 mental disorders. It was used to assess for MDD, in remission, and to rule out the presence of any comorbid mental disorders. Psychometric evaluations of the MINI report satisfactory interrater reliability and concurrent validity with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview [ 34 ].

Patient Health Questionnaire– 8 (PHQ-8) [ 35 ]. The PHQ-8 is a validated self-report scale used as a diagnostic and severity measure for depression. Participants report how often they were bothered by symptoms of depression over the last two weeks, with higher total scores reflecting greater depressive symptoms. Participants reporting scores greater than 10 during our eligibility screening were excluded. The PHQ-9, which is psychometrically comparable to the PHQ-8, has excellent internal and test-retest reliability and adequate criterion and construct validity [ 36 ].

Symptom Checklist 90– Revised (SCL-90-R) [ 37 , 38 ]. The SCL-90-R self-report scale evaluates psychological distress and symptoms of psychopathology across nine domains: Somatization, Obsessive-Compulsivity, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, Phobic Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation, and Psychoticism. The SCL-90-R also provides a Global Severity Index (GSI) which measures overall psychological distress. Participants indicated how much they were bothered by various symptoms over the past week. Higher scores reflect greater levels of pathological distress. The SCL-90-R has good internal reliability and high concurrent validity [ 39 ].

World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) [ 40 , 41 ]. The WHOQOL-BREF self-report scale measures quality of life (QoL) across four domains: physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environment. Higher scores represent higher QoL. These domains have adequate internal consistency and test re-test reliability [ 41 ].

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) [ 42 ]. The BDI-II is a 21-item self-report questionnaire evaluating current depression symptoms. Higher scores indicate greater depressive symptoms. The BDI-II has excellent internal consistency and test re-test reliability [ 43 ].

Semi-structured interviews

Participants underwent a 60–90-minute semi-structured interview via Zoom [ 44 ] between October 2020 and January 2021. The first two authors of this paper (STG and AB), senior graduate students in clinical psychology, conducted and analyzed the interviews. The interviews were audio- and video-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Our interview guide (see Additional File 1 ) was developed in our laboratory and inspired by existing FIR questionnaires and qualitative interview guides [ 45 , 46 ]. The first section of the interview was comprised of open-ended questions about participants’ history of, and experiences with, MDD, FoDR, and the COVID-19 pandemic (data not reported). The FoDR questions explored the frequency, severity, content, triggers, and impact of participants’ fears and inquired about how participants respond to and cope with FoDR. Participants were also asked to generate a list of structured questionnaire items that will be used to develop a FoDR questionnaire. Our interview guide was reviewed iteratively by our research team until consensus on the items was reached.

Interested participants were invited via email to take part in an initial phone screening to obtain oral consent and confirm eligibility. If eligible, participants were provided with additional information about the study and invited to complete an online survey containing demographic questions and additional questionnaires on SurveyMonkey [ 47 ]. They then underwent the MINI and the qualitative interview. Recruitment ceased once data saturation had been achieved [ 48 ]. Participants were compensated $40.

Data analysis

We used a content analysis approach to analyze the transcribed interview data, whereby repeated ideas and key concepts are labelled, coded, and categorized inductively from the data and integrated with existing literature [ 49 , 50 ]. Content analysis enables the systematic and objective description and quantification of novel phenomena [ 51 ]. This approach allowed us to openly explore participants’ experiences with FoDR, while dually enriching our broader knowledge of FIR.

The first two authors (STG and AB) began by reading the transcriptions to fully immerse themselves in the data, before independently reviewing the first ten interviews word-by-word and assigning codes to every text fragment (i.e., units of meaning). The authors then reviewed these codes until consensus on labels was achieved and a preliminary coding scheme was developed. Then, both authors used this scheme to independently code the remaining twenty interviews. The first author (STG) then compared the two sets of codes obtained from coding the final twenty interviews and consensus was achieved through discussion with author AB until a final coding manual was established. Once all the interviews were coded, the investigators grouped codes capturing similar ideas into categories and subcategories. Quotations capturing thoughts that meaningfully expressed the core idea of each category were extracted and reported in-text and in Additional File 2 . Coding was supported by the qualitative research software ATLAS.ti (Version 22.1.0) [ 52 ] and analysis of the demographic characteristics and psychosocial measures was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS; Version 28) [ 53 ].

Participant characteristics

Phone screenings were conducted with 51 participants, of which 36 were eligible to complete the questionnaires, MINI, and interview. Three participants did not complete subsequent parts of the study and three were excluded due to reporting current depressive symptoms. Thirty individuals (83% female; 37% White; Mean Age = 27.7) with remitted MDD completed the full study. Sociodemographic characteristics are presented in Table  1 , mental health history in Table  2 , and scores on the psychosocial measures in Table  3 .

Participants’ subjective reporting of the number of lifetime MDEs varied ( n  = 27; M = 7.33; SD = 13.18; Range = 1–60), with most experiencing two or more MDEs ( n  = 17; 63%). Almost all participants reported that they currently have no depression symptoms or that they have some symptoms that do not bother them or interfere with their life ( n  = 26; 96%). Due to an experimenter error, three participants were not prompted on SurveyMonkey to self-report specific MDD characteristics (see Table  2 ). Within the qualitative interviews, some participants ( n  = 24) indicated that their past MDEs ranged in duration (1 month– 20 years) and all participants reported being in remission for at least three months (3 months– 14 years).

Qualitative findings

We report here the most frequently mentioned codes. Reported “ n ” values refer to the number of times a code was mentioned by participants across the full interview. Reported percentages (%) refer to the percentage of our sample who reported the code at least once. Additional File 2 contains a complete list of all codes, categories, and subcategories and Fig.  1 contains a list of all FODR categories and subcategories.

figure 1

All FoDR categories, subcategories, and codes

Participants’ experiences with depression

Triggers of past MDEs. Participants reported interpersonal triggers of past MDEs, including social conflict ( n  = 32, 50%), feeling alone, isolated, and unsupported ( n  = 17, 47%), and relationship loss (e.g., grief, breakup; n  = 11, 27%). Other MDE triggers included uncertainty about one’s future ( n  = 26, 47%), academic ( n  = 24, 53%) and occupational ( n  = 18, 30%) stressors, and transitions ( n  = 16, 30%).

Symptoms and consequences of past MDEs. All participants reported common MDD symptoms including depressed mood and negative cognitions ( n  = 61, 97%), sleep difficulties ( n  = 34, 80%), anhedonia ( n  = 36, 73%), feelings of worthlessness, guilt, and self-criticism ( n  = 26, 63%), weight and appetite changes ( n  = 19, 43%), and suicidal ideation and/or non-suicidal self-injury ( n  = 19, 33%). Reported consequences of past MDEs included difficulties functioning socially ( n  = 29, 63%), taking care of oneself ( n  = 15, 30%), and academic ( n  = 18, 37%) and occupational challenges ( n  = 7, 23%). Participant FD26 described the consequences of their MDE: “ I had to drop out of school, I had to stop working. I could barely take care of myself.”.

Coping strategies used to cope with past MDEs. The most mentioned coping strategy to manage depressive symptoms was to seek help from a mental health professional ( n  = 37, 67%). Additional coping strategies included social support ( n  = 21, 40%), cognitive strategies ( n  = 16, 27%), medication ( n  = 15, 37%), and behavioural strategies ( n  = 16, 37%).

Experience of being in remission from MDD. When asked about remission, participants reported improvements to their mood ( n  = 22, 63%) and ability to take care of themselves ( n  = 8, 23%). For some, the experience of living through an MDE led to greater self-efficacy ( n  = 20, 50%), enhanced identity development and personal growth ( n  = 15, 33%), and a positive shift in one’s worldview (e.g., open-mindedness; n  = 13, 30%). Some participants described experiencing distinct changes post-MDE including difficulty differentiating “normal” emotions (e.g., sadness) from clinical depression ( n  = 6, 20%) and continuous pressure to manage one’s mental health ( n  = 6, 13%).

Participants’ experiences with FoDR

Presence, frequency, and severity of fears. Twenty-two (73%) participants reported experiencing FoDR and eight (27%) indicated that they either do not experience FoDR or that their FoDR does not concern them. We explored differences in the presence of FoDR among the 27 participants in our sample who reported having either one past MDE (37%) or a history of two or more MDEs (63%). Among the 10 participants who reported having one past MDE, seven reported FoDR and three did not. For the 17 participants reporting a history of having two or more MDEs, 13 endorsed FoDR whereas four did not.

The frequency and severity of these fears varied. Some indicated that they have FoDR on a weekly ( n  = 12, 23%) or monthly ( n  = 10, 30%) basis, with these fears typically lasting a few minutes ( n  = 13, 43%) or hours ( n  = 7, 23%). Others reported that their fears remained persistent for days ( n  = 5, 17%). When asked to provide fear and distress ratings on a ten-point scale (1: “Not at all distressing/scared”, 10: “Extremely distressing/scared”), most participants reported distress ratings of five ( n  = 10) or six ( n  = 7), and fear ratings of three ( n  = 8).

Content of fears. Participants produced vivid descriptions to illustrate the shapes and sensations associated with their FoDR. For some, FoDR resembled specific memories of past MDEs ( n  = 11, 33%), an all-encompassing darkness ( n  = 9, 20%), or feelings of being trapped ( n  = 7, 17%). Participant FD22 described their FoDR as:

“Terrible darkness. Like a hole where I’m going to fall into. And pain, a lot of pain. And if I fall into that all I will never be able to climb back. […]. It’s like a terror. It feels like I’m terrorized that if I fall, that’s it.”

Participants expressed fears related to re-experiencing core MDE symptoms including depressed mood ( n  = 42, 70%), sleep difficulties ( n  = 25, 57%), anhedonia ( n  = 26, 40%), negative cognitions ( n  = 18, 37%), feelings of worthlessness, guilt, and self-criticism ( n  = 18, 40%), weight and/or appetites changes ( n  = 13, 30%), and suicidal ideation and/or non-suicidal self-injury ( n  = 12, 27%). Participant FD01 reported FoDR including:

“Sleeping all the time and […] not maintaining my friendships and relationships. Not talking to anyone. […]. I won’t eat well, so then, like, I’ll gain weight, and then I just won’t like the way I look.”

Participants’ FoDR were also centered around re-experiencing similar interpersonal consequences or challenges faced during past MDEs. These fears included experiencing difficulties socializing (e.g., feeling alone/isolated, withdrawing from others; n  = 43, 63%) and negative social evaluation (e.g., burdening others; n  = 32, 53%). Participant FD05 described:

“ For me it’s mostly feeling detached from everything. Because right now I feel like I’m in a situation where I’m surrounded by good people, my friends, my work environment, all of that. And I worry that if I go back to the depression, feeling emotionally detached from everyone, it’s just gonna ruin a lot of good friendships.”

Participants expressed fears related to the uncertainty of how another MDE would impact their life ( n  = 37, 50%), including concerns about goal achievement, falling behind, and losing the progress made since their last MDE. Participant FD14 reported:

“I would lose this happy life that I have right now. Like that just feeling okay would go away. So that’s definitely a scary thing.”

Participants’ fears also included experiencing occupational and academic consequences ( n  = 30, 50%), difficulties with personal functioning ( n  = 24, 43%), and reduced self-efficacy ( n  = 14, 30%).

Triggers of fears. The two most frequently mentioned triggers of FoDR included re-experiencing MDE symptoms ( n  = 73, 83%) and reminders of past MDEs or difficult life experiences ( n  = 40, 60%). Some participants reported increased FoDR when struggling academically or occupationally ( n  = 33, 50%), when feeling overwhelmed and stressed ( n  = 23, 47%), and when experiencing difficulties functioning ( n  = 13, 23%). Examples of reported interpersonal triggers included dealing with interpersonal conflict ( n  = 27, 47%), feeling alone and unsupported ( n  = 20, 47%), and experiencing grief or loss ( n  = 9, 20%). Participants also described experiencing FoDR in response to uncertainty about the future ( n  = 23, 40%), having to make life decisions and future plans ( n  = 12, 17%), undergoing a transition ( n  = 10, 23%), and when facing negative life events ( n  = 20, 43%).

Impact of FoDR on daily functioning. Some participants reported a negative impact of FoDR on daily functioning. FoDR was associated with increased anxiety ( n  = 23, 57%), negative mood changes (e.g., sadness; n  = 21, 47%), academic and/or occupational consequences ( n  = 16, 33%), and sleep difficulties ( n  = 5, 10%). Participant FD30 described that their FoDR:

“Seem like a huge deal, I definitely can get a lot of anxiety over them. I can be really insanely upset over them. Again, like I’ve lost sleep over it.”

Others described a “snowball effect” ( n  = 13, 37%), where FoDR led them to be increasingly hypervigilant to symptom changes, more overwhelmed, and at a greater perceived risk of MDE recurrence. FoDR also impacted participants’ engagement in specific behaviours ( n  = 15, 20%), including avoiding triggers of past MDEs, reducing responsibilities, and less risk-taking. For some, FoDR influenced future decision making and choices through exercising greater caution surrounding transitions and an increased sense of urgency when decision-making ( n  = 13, 17%). Participant FD08 describes how they:

“Definitely don’t do the same things I used to before. Like, I’m not the same person, it’s been eight years. But I do feel like there was a shift in my personality from before and after my depression, like, I’m a lot less of a risk taker. I’m a lot less, you know, worry-free, I am more careful, I’m more aware.”

FoDR also led to positive behavioural and personal changes. For some, FoDR led to greater engagement in health behaviours (n = 28, 40%), including trying to proactively address early warning signs of another MDE. FoDR was also associated with positive personality changes and growth ( n  = 17, 30%), including increased confidence and greater awareness of one’s mental health needs. Participant FD05 described how their FoDR:

“Impacted [me] in a good way, because it makes me recognize some warning signs before they get bad. […]. If I’m maybe taking less care of myself, sleeping less, working too much until like I can’t focus on things anymore, I started to recognize that as a warning sign. And I kind of take a step back and focus on getting back to a structured routine, so it doesn’t get worse.”

Some participants reported that FoDR had no or little impact on daily functioning ( n  = 28, 50%):

“I don’t worry as much. The worry doesn’t last that long. So definitely no impact on my life. And emotionally too. […]. I wouldn’t say it affect[s] that much.” [FD02].

Coping with FoDR. Participants commonly reported using cognitive strategies (e.g., acceptance, distraction; n  = 79, 97%) and shifting their perspectives to be more positive and open ( n  = 23, 50%) to cope with FoDR. Participant FD20 described their coping style as:

“Just more like accepting. Like, if it does come back […], I kind of like, know it’s not a forever thing. And I know, generally, like, I have strategies to help me.”

Social support ( n  = 41, 67%), including interacting with friends, family, and engaging in social activities, was also helpful in managing FoDR. Participant FD12 described that their “ tool for addressing those thoughts coming back is just talking about it more.”. Some participants used behavioural strategies to cope with FoDR including engaging in health behaviours (e.g., exercise; n  = 35, 60%), directly addressing sources of FoDR ( n  = 14, 33%), relaxation strategies (e.g., mindfulness; n  = 15, 37%), and participating in mastery-oriented activities (e.g., cleaning; n  = 10, 23%). Others sought help from a mental health professional (e.g., therapy, psychiatrist; n  = 15, 33%). Participant FD30 described their coping:

“ I write in a journal and I display my thoughts. So [my FoDR] doesn’t last more than a couple of hours I, if I’m really feeling scared or anxious, I will speak to someone, or I will check in with myself [as] I don’t want [it] to get to be something really big.”

For some, understanding and accepting one’s relationship with depression ( n  = 37, 60%), including greater awareness of the signs of an incoming MDE, helped mitigate FoDR. Other FoDR coping strategies included developing a more balanced and/or positive view of the self (e.g., adjusting expectations; n  = 27, 37%).

Situations that reduce FoDR. Participants reported that feeling competent, productive, and accomplished ( n  = 9, 27%), experiencing positive social interactions and/or feeling supported ( n  = 8, 27%), distraction ( n  = 8, 23%), and mood improvements ( n  = 8, 27%) reduced FoDR.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to explicitly examine FoDR among individuals with remitted MDD. Most of our sample (73%) reported FoDR, with these fears often occurring monthly or weekly and lasting minutes or hours. The most frequently mentioned triggers of FoDR included re-experiencing depression symptoms, reminders of past MDEs, and interpersonal conflict. The content of participants' FoDR varied, with participants most commonly reporting fears related to re-experiencing MDE symptoms, difficulties socializing, academic and occupational challenges, and uncertainty about the future.

There was substantial overlap between the reported triggers and content of participants’ FoDR. Participants described how negative interpersonal experiences, difficulties functioning at work, home, or at school, and re-experiencing MDE symptoms served as both triggers for and content of their FoDR. Other reported triggers included transitions, reminders of past MDEs, and decision making. These triggers overlapped with participants’ fears surrounding the uncertainty of having another MDE and the impact it would have on them. Although some content and triggers of FoDR were unique to depression, similarities emerged with what is known about FIR in cancer. For example, symptom changes (e.g., pain) and reminders of past cancer experiences are also documented triggers of FIR and some cancer survivors have endorsed fears related to the uncertainty of their futures, burdening others, and loss of independence [ 13 , 54 ]. Similarly, participants in the present study described reminders of past MDEs as a key trigger of FoDR. Contrary to the fear of cancer recurrence literature, participants in this study did not report fears related to dying, experiencing physical pain, and undergoing treatments (e.g., chemotherapy) [ 54 ]. Notably, interpersonal factors, including conflict with friends and/or family and the potential loss of a relationship (e.g., grief, break ups), were reported as triggers of FoDR, representing factors that may distinguish FoDR from FIR more broadly.

Participants’ experiences of FoDR offer evidence for the cyclical nature of MDD. Both the triggers and content of participants’ FoDR were linked to the triggers, symptoms, and consequences of their past MDEs. Participants expressed concerns that if they were to have another MDE, they would have to endure the same symptoms and challenges previously experienced. Achieving full remission from depression is complex, and research investigating the course of depression is often criticized for a lack of consensus about key points of change within the depression cycle [ 55 , 56 ]. Although at the time of the study all participants met criteria for remission from MDD, our findings indicate that the impact of having endured an MDE (e.g., life consequences, behavioural changes), influenced participants’ FoDR. These findings support the idea that deficits in functioning and other longstanding consequences of MDEs (i.e., changes in self-perception) may remit slower than acute MDE symptoms and contribute to the resurgence of residual symptoms and MDE recurrence through means of FoDR [ 57 , 58 ]. Indeed, the presence of residual symptoms is a well-established and robust predictor of MDE recurrence [ 10 ], providing support that the present fears around past depressive symptoms and consequences may signify risk for relapse.

Participants used similar coping strategies in response to FoDR that they reported using during past MDEs (e.g., cognitive strategies, professional help). Participants indicated that reflecting on their experiences with MDD helped them to develop a more balanced and positive view of themselves and accept their depression histories, which, in turn, helped them cope with FoDR. Similar coping strategies have been reported in other qualitative studies of depression [ 59 , 60 , 61 ]. However, it was sometimes challenging for participants to discern when in the depression cycle specific coping strategies were used (i.e., during past MDEs, in response to FoDR, in the ongoing management of one’s general mental health, or to cope with recurrent symptoms). These findings suggest that we have yet to understand how and when in the depression cycle these strategies are used.

The impact of FoDR on participants’ daily lives varied substantially. Notably, 50% of our sample reported that FoDR had little or no impact on their lives. For others, FoDR had a negative impact, including posing challenges to decision making, negatively affecting one’s mood, academic and occupational consequences, and functional impairments. Conversely, some participants reported that FoDR positively impacted their lives by fostering personal growth and motivating them to engage in health behaviours to reduce the risk of MDE recurrence. Similar impacts of FoDR on functioning and self-perceptions were described by Coyne et al. [ 11 ] who found that living through an MDE provided some participants with a renewed sense of strength, whereas others felt pressured to continuously manage their mental health and reduce risk taking. The multidimensional impact of FoDR reported in this study complements what we know about FIR in cancer. Fear of cancer recurrence has been associated with greater depression and anxiety symptoms, reduced quality of life, reduced engagement in social activities, and limited coping [ 13 , 17 , 62 , 63 ]. Positive influences of FIR in cancer have also been reported including serving as a motivator to better manage one’s illness through self-care, positive coping, and symptom monitoring [ 13 , 19 ].

Future directions

Identifying the factors that influence how one responds to FoDR will help us differentiate why some individuals report no impact or a positive impact of FoDR whereas others describe a negative influence on daily functioning. Future research should explore whether individual (e.g., neuroticism, FoDR severity, coping) and/or characteristics of the disorder (e.g., duration and severity of past MDEs) influence the presence and impact of FoDR on daily functioning, mood, cognitions, and behaviours. For example, 26% of our sample reported having a comorbid anxiety disorder and 48% endorsed a history of more than three past MDEs. It would be beneficial to examine whether a history of recurrent MDD and/or having an anxiety disorder are contributing to the presence of FoDR and its negative impact on functioning. Further, identifying the factors that explain the variance in how our participants responded to and perceived their FoDR may allow for the development of more tailored treatment and relapse prevention protocols for individuals with remitted MDD endorsing FoDR. This knowledge may also provide an avenue to further explore potential “at risk” profiles of individuals with remitted MDD who may be at higher risk of MDE recurrence through engagement in specific cognitive and behavioural changes associated with FoDR. Similarly, knowledge of the underlying characteristics leading individuals to respond positively to FoDR (e.g., personal growth, greater engagement in health behaviours), may lead to the identification of targetable factors in relapse prevention interventions for recurrent MDD.

The substantial overlap between the content and triggers of participants’ FoDR with their past MDE experiences, confounded by the presence of residual symptoms, offers evidence for the cyclical, dynamic, and constantly changing nature of MDD. Given this, we recommend viewing FoDR as a dynamic construct that may wax and wane in intensity and severity as one progresses through the depression cycle. Thus, it is important to examine the presence and impact of FoDR longitudinally, to explore whether FoDR and one’s response to these fears may evolve based on disorder-specific, environmental, situational, and individual changes.

Future research should also consider the similarities and differences of the nature and impact of FIR across both psychiatric (e.g., depression, psychotic disorders) and medical conditions (e.g., cancer). For example, perhaps people’s perceptions of their illness and the level of perceived control they have over the resurgence of symptoms may differ dramatically between those with a psychiatric condition (i.e., depression) versus a physical one (i.e., skin cancer). These potential differences may then inform the presence of FoDR and the extent of impact associated with these fears. Finally, future FIR research would benefit from interdisciplinary research collaborations aimed at identifying the elements of FIR that may present transdiagnostically across both psychiatric and medical conditions.

Given the intersecting influence of an individual’s past MDE on FoDR, future research should focus on disentangling how residual depression symptoms and consequences of past MDEs relate to FoDR and influence MDD prognosis. To do this, it may be beneficial to include participants endorsing residual symptoms of MDD within future studies of FoDR. However, prior to being able to quantitatively examine FoDR and its relationship to health outcomes, personality characteristics, and other indices of functioning, a psychometrically valid measure of FoDR must be developed. This measure should be designed to capture the unique elements of MDD that are not otherwise represented across measures of FIR in cancer and other chronic illnesses.

Several limitations are worth noting. Firstly, all interviews were conducted online, which may have influenced the willingness of participants to speak candidly about their experiences. Secondly, although our sample was adequate in size and we achieved data saturation, we did not conduct subgroup analyses with unique depression subtypes (i.e., recurrent vs. single episode MDD) or based on any sociocultural factors. Therefore, we are unable to draw conclusions about whether there are differences in the experiences of FoDR across clinical and sociocultural variables. Thirdly, some participants, particularly those with long durations since the end of their last MDEs, may have experienced memory bias, thus influencing the accuracy of their ability to recall important details about their past MDEs and current FoDR. However, we chose to recruit broadly to ensure that our final sample contained participants with a wide range of experiences and diverse characteristics. Fourthly, we did not use a quantitative estimate of intercoder reliability, which may limit the objectivity and reliability of our analyses and interpretations. However, aligned with the recommendations proposed in the COREQ [ 29 ] and SRQR [ 30 ] guidelines to enhance credibility, our data analysis approach involved multiple coders, clear descriptions of how we engaged with and analyzed the data, and transparency in how we developed our final codebook. We also included many supporting quotations from different participants both within our results and in Additional File 2 to enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of our findings and interpretations of the data.

Finally, although we used both the MINI diagnostic interview and the PHQ-8 to screen out participants with current depressive symptoms, results from the self-reported BDI-II scores indicated that some participants endorsed minimal depressive symptoms during the study. It is possible that having current depressive symptoms confounded a participants’ experiences with FoDR. It is also possible that not including participants with residual symptoms compromised the generalizability of our findings as it is common for individuals in remission from MDD to endorse the presence of and fluctuations in residual symptoms. These findings also highlight the importance of differentiating FoDR from residual depression symptoms.

We used semi-structured interviews to gain a thorough and nuanced understanding of the different content, triggers, severity, and impact of a participants’ FoDR. Our findings paralleled what we know about FIR in other health conditions and uniquely captured the lived experience of individuals with remitted MDD. Understanding the diverse impact that FoDR has on daily functioning and MDD prognosis may present a window into understanding the mechanisms influencing MDE recurrence.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to concerns about revealing the individual privacy and identities of participants but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

World Health Organization. Depression and other common mental disorders: global health estimates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. pp. 1–24.

Google Scholar  

Kessler RC, Petukhova M, Sampson NA, Zaslavsky AM, Wittchen HU. Twelve-month and lifetime prevalence and lifetime morbid risk of anxiety and mood disorders in the United States. Int J Methods Psychiatry Res. 2012;21(3):169–84.

Burcusa SL, Iacono WG. Risk for recurrence in depression. Clin Psych Rev. 2007;27(8):959–85.

Eaton WW, Shao H, Nestadt G, Lee BH, Bienvenu OJ, Zandi P. Population-based study of first onset and chronicity in major depressive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(5):513–20.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Steinert C, Hofmann M, Kruse J, Leichsenring F. Relapse rates after psychotherapy for depression–stable long-term effects? A meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2014;168:107–18.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kennis M, Gerritsen L, van Dalen M, Williams A, Cuijpers P, Bockting C. Prospective biomarkers of major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatr. 2020;25(2):321–38.

Monroe SM, Harkness KL. Recurrence in major depression: a conceptual analysis. Psychol Rev. 2011;118(4):655–74.

Monroe S, Harkness K. Is depression a chronic mental illness? Psychol Med. 2012;42(5):899–902.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bockting CL, Hollon SD, Jarrett RB, Kuyken W, Dobson K. A lifetime approach to major depressive disorder: the contributions of psychological interventions in preventing relapse and recurrence. Clin Psych Rev. 2015;41:16–26.

Buckman JE, Underwood A, Clarke K, Saunders R, Hollon S, Fearon P, et al. Risk factors for relapse and recurrence of depression in adults and how they operate: a four-phase systematic review and meta-synthesis. Clin Psych Rev. 2018;64:13–38.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Coyne JC, Calarco MM. Effects of the experience of depression: application of focus group and survey methodologies. Psychiatr. 1995;58(2):149–63.

Lebel S, Ozakinci G, Humphris G, Mutsaers B, Thewes B, Prins J, et al. From normal response to clinical problem: definition and clinical features of fear of cancer recurrence. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(8):3265–8.

Almeida SN, Elliott R, Silva ER, Sales CM. Fear of cancer recurrence: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis of patients’ experiences. Clin Psychol Rev. 2019;68:13–24.

Herschbach P, Berg P, Dankert A, Duran G, Engst-Hastreiter U, Waadt S, et al. Fear of progression in chronic diseases: psychometric properties of the fear of Progression Questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2005;58(6):505–11.

Noble AJ, Baisch S, Covey J, Mukerji N, Nath F, Schenk T. Subarachnoid hemorrhage patients’ fears of recurrence are related to the presence of posttraumatic stress disorder. Neurosurgery. 2011;69(2):323–33.

Townend E, Tinson D, Kwan J, Sharpe M. Fear of recurrence and beliefs about preventing recurrence in persons who have suffered a stroke. J Psychosom Res. 2006;61(6):747–55.

Liu J, Peh C-X, Simard S, Griva K, Mahendran R. Beyond the fear that lingers: the interaction between fear of cancer recurrence and rumination in relation to depression and anxiety symptoms. J Psychosom Res. 2018;111:120–6.

Séguin Leclair C, Lebel S, Westmaas JL. The relationship between fear of cancer recurrence and health behaviors: a nationwide longitudinal study of cancer survivors. Health Psychol. 2019;38(7):596–605.

Simard S, Thewes B, Humphris G, Dixon M, Hayden C, Mireskandari S, et al. Fear of cancer recurrence in adult cancer survivors: a systematic review of quantitative studies. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7(3):300–22.

Thewes B, Butow P, Bell M, Beith J, Stuart-Harris R, Grossi M, et al. Fear of cancer recurrence in young women with a history of early-stage breast cancer: a cross-sectional study of prevalence and association with health behaviours. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(11):2651–9.

Gumley AI, MacBeth A, Reilly JD, O’Grady M, White RG, McLeod H, et al. Fear of recurrence: results of a randomized trial of relapse detection in schizophrenia. Br J Clin Psychol. 2015;54(1):49–62.

Jamalamadaka T, Griffith E, Steer H, Salkovskis P. Fear of illness recurrence and mental health anxiety in people recovering from psychosis and common mental health problems. Br J Clin Psychol. 2020;59(3):403–23.

Kirk L, Haaga DA, Solomon A, Brody C. Perceptions of depression among never-depressed and recovered-depressed people. Cognit Ther Res. 2000;24(5):585–94.

Leydon GM, Rodgers L, Kendrick T. A qualitative study of patient views on discontinuing long-term selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Fam Pract. 2007;24(6):570–5.

Maund E, Dewar-Haggart R, Williams S, Bowers H, Geraghty AW, Leydon G, et al. Barriers and facilitators to discontinuing antidepressant use: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. J Affect Disord. 2019;245:38–62.

Moustakas C. Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publiations Inc: California; 1994.

O’Reilly M, Lester JN. Examining mental health through social constructionism: the language of mental health. London: Palgrave Macmillan Cham; 2017.

Sutton J, Austin Z. Qualitative research: data collection, analysis, and management. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2015;68(3):226.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51.

American Psychiatric Association. Depressive Disorders. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). 2013.

Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Janavs J, Weiller E, Keskiner A, et al. The validity of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric interview (MINI) according to the SCID-P and its reliability. Eur Psychiatry. 1997;12(5):232–41.

Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, et al. The mini-international neuropsychiatric interview (MINI): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(20):22–33.

Lecrubier Y, Sheehan DV, Weiller E, Amorim P, Bonora I, Sheehan KH, et al. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric interview (MINI). A short diagnostic structured interview: reliability and validity according to the CIDI. Eur Psychiat. 1997;12(5):224–31.

Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disorders. 2009;114(1–3):163–73.

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Derogatis LR, Cleary PA. Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the SCL-90: a study in construct validation. J Clin Psychol. 1977;33(4):981–9.

Derogatis LR, Unger R. Symptom checklist-90‐revised. The Corsini Encyclopedia of psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2010. pp. 1–2.

Schmitz N, Hartkamp N, Kiuse J, Franke G, Reister G, Tress W. The symptom check-list-90-R (SCL-90-R): a German validation study. Qual Life Res. 2000;9:185–93.

Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:299–310.

WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28(3):551–8.

Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown G. Beck depression inventory–II. Psychol Assess; 1996.

Wang Y-P, Gorenstein C. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory-II: a comprehensive review. Braz J Psychiatry. 2013;35:416–31.

Zoom Video Communications Inc. Zoom cloud meetings (Version 5.12.2). 2021.

Simard S, Savard J. Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory: development and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of fear of cancer recurrence. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17(3):241–51.

Simard S, Savard J. Screening and comorbidity of clinical levels of fear of cancer recurrence. J Cancer Surviv. 2015;9:481–91.

Momentive Inc. SurveyMonkey. San Mateo, California, USA, 2021.

Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual Rep. 2015;20(9):1408–16.

Creswell JW, Poth C. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. SAGE Publications Inc: California; 2015.

Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398–405.

Downe-Wamboldt B. Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care Women Int. 1992;13(3):313–21.

ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. ATLAS.ti 22 Mac (Version 22.0). 2022. https://atlasti.com .

Corp I. IMP SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 28.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2021.

Thewes B, Lebel S, Seguin Leclair C, Butow P. A qualitative exploration of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) amongst Australian and Canadian breast cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:2269–76.

de Zwart PL, Jeronimus BF, de Jonge P. Empirical evidence for definitions of episode, remission, recovery, relapse and recurrence in depression: a systematic review. Epidemiol Psychiatric Sci. 2019;28(5):544–62.

Richards D. Prevalence and clinical course of depression: a review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011;31(7):1117–25.

Paykel E. Partial remission, residual symptoms, and relapse in depression. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2008;10(4):431–7.

Zimmerman M, McGlinchey JB, Posternak MA, Friedman M, Boerescu D, Attiullah N. Remission in depressed outpatients: more than just symptom resolution? J Psychiatr Res. 2008;42(10):797–801.

Drapeau M, Blake E, Dobson KS, Körner A. Coping strategies in major depression and over the course of cognitive therapy for depression. Can J Couns. 2017;51(1):18–39.

Skärsäter I, Dencker K, Bergbom I, Häggström L, Fridlund B. Women’s conceptions of coping with major depression in daily life: a qualitative, salutogenic approach. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2003;24(4):419–39.

Skärsäter I, Dencker K, Häggström L, Fridlund B. A salutogenetic perspective on how men cope with major depression in daily life, with the help of professional and lay support. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003;40(2):153–62.

Mutsaers B, Jones G, Rutkowski N, Tomei C, Leclair CS, Petricone-Westwood D, et al. When fear of cancer recurrence becomes a clinical issue: a qualitative analysis of features associated with clinical fear of cancer recurrence. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(10):4207–18.

Skaali T, Fosså SD, Bremnes R, Dahl O, Haaland CF, Hauge ER, et al. Fear of recurrence in long-term testicular cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2009;18(6):580–8.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participants for being open about their experiences with depression and for providing their valuable time and energy to make this research possible. We would also like to thank Gabriela Kennedy for her help preparing Additional File 2 .

This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant #378786). STG was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Concordia University’s PERFORM Centre, and IODE Canada.

The funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, manuscript composition, or the decision to submit the article for publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, H4B 1R6, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Stephanie T. Gumuchian, Ariel Boyle, Lori H. Hazel & Mark A. Ellenbogen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

STG, AB, and ME were involved in study conceptualization and design. LH, AB, and STG conducted the data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. STG drafted the initial manuscript. All authors reviewed and revised the manuscript and approved the final manuscript submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie T. Gumuchian .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Concordia University in Montréal, Québec, Canada (REB# 30013399) and all participants provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Additional file 1: Qualitative interview guide

12888_2024_5588_moesm2_esm.docx.

Additional file 2: Codebook containing all codes, categories, subcategories, code definitions, example quotations, and number of code mentions

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gumuchian, S.T., Boyle, A., Hazel, L.H. et al. Fear of depression recurrence among individuals with remitted depression: a qualitative interview study. BMC Psychiatry 24 , 152 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05588-4

Download citation

Received : 02 August 2023

Accepted : 05 February 2024

Published : 21 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05588-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Major depressive disorder
  • Fear of depression recurrence
  • Qualitative inquiry
  • Content analysis

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

interview protocol for qualitative research sample

IMAGES

  1. 242 Assignment 1 Interview Protocol

    interview protocol for qualitative research sample

  2. [PDF] Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol

    interview protocol for qualitative research sample

  3. -6: Final Main Study Interview Protocol

    interview protocol for qualitative research sample

  4. Interview Protocol.

    interview protocol for qualitative research sample

  5. Qualitative Research Interview Protocol Template

    interview protocol for qualitative research sample

  6. Sample description for the qualitative interview study.

    interview protocol for qualitative research sample

VIDEO

  1. Qualitative Research

  2. Chapter 15 Designing and Administering An Interview Protocol

  3. Interview Prep Shortcut

  4. Interview guide in research methodology

  5. How to code data collection from interview protocol by using Atlas.Ti ???

  6. Risks and Interviews

COMMENTS

  1. Interview protocol design

    Your protocol can be viewed as a guide for the interview: what to say at the beginning of the interview to introduce yourself and the topic of the interview, how to collect participant consent, interview questions, and what to say when you end the interview.

  2. PDF Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips for

    10. Be willing to make "on the spot" revisions to your interview protocol. Many times when you are conducting interviews a follow up question may pop into your mind. If a question occurs to you in the interview ask it. Sometimes the "ah-ha" question that makes a great project comes to you in the moment.

  3. PDF Appendix 1: Semi-structured interview guide

    health research: a qualitative study protocol 2 Appendix 2: Participant Information Sheet Experiences with Methods for Identifying and Displaying Research Gaps We invite you to take part in our research study. Before you decide whether to participate, you should understand why the research is being done and what it will involve.

  4. PDF Annex 1. Example of the semi‐structured interview guide

    1. Qualitative interview introduction Length: 45-60 minutes Primary goal: To see things the way you see them... more like a conversation with a focus on your experience, your opinions and what you think or feel about the topics covered 2. Verbal consent Would you like to participate in this interview?

  5. Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol Refinement

    Recommended APA Citation Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol Refinement Framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811-831. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337 This How To Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks.

  6. PDF TIPSHEET QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWING

    "What do you mean by... ?" "Can you tell me more about ... ?" Probes are standardized ways to get more depth and detail Probes should be short and simple to avoid breaking the interviewee's focus For continuation: "Then what happened?" For elaboration: "Can you give me an example?" For steering the conversation: "You mentioned that..."

  7. Sample Interview Protocol Form

    Sample Interview Protocol Form. Faculty Interview Protocol. Institutions: _____ Interviewee (Title and Name): _____ Interviewer: _____ ... Our research project as a whole focuses on the improvement of teaching and learning activity, with particular interest in understanding how faculty in academic programs are engaged in this activity, how they ...

  8. PDF CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS: A Guide for Designing and Conducting In

    In-depth interviewing is a qualitative research technique that involves conducting intensive individual interviews with a small number of respondents to explore their perspectives on a particular idea, program, or situation.

  9. (PDF) Creating Qualitative Interview Protocols

    Abstract This manuscript describes a technique which facilitates the documentation of research participant stories interpreting their experiences in response to a research question. From a...

  10. PDF Prompts, Not Questions: Four Techniques for Crafting Better Interview

    the practice of conducting interviews. We provide illustrative examples from our and others' research to show how generally minor tweaks to interview protocols can go a long way in accomplishing the purpose of interviewing no matter the overarching research question or population under study. Setting an Intention: Prompts Not Questions

  11. Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews

    Summary. The qualitative research interview is a powerful data-collection tool which affords researchers in medical education opportunities to explore unknown areas of education and practice within medicine. This paper articulates 12 tips for consideration when conducting qualitative research interviews, and outlines the qualitative research ...

  12. Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips for

    Abstract Students new to doing qualitative research in the ethnographic and oral traditions, often have difficulty creating successful interview protocols. This article offers practical suggestions for students new to qualitative research for both writing interview protocol that elicit useful data and for conducting the interview.

  13. PDF Strategies for Qualitative Interviews

    1. Knowledgeable: is thoroughly familiar with the focus of the interview; pilot interviews of the kind used in survey interviewing can be useful here. 2. Structuring: gives purpose for interview; rounds it off; asks whether interviewee has questions. 3. Clear: asks simple, easy, short questions; no jargon. 4.

  14. (PDF) How to Conduct an Effective Interview; A Guide to Interview

    Interviews are one of the most promising ways of collecting qualitative data through establishment of a communication between researcher and the interviewee. Researcher in a face to face, phone...

  15. PDF WORKBOOK E: CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

    An in-depth interview is an open-ended, discovery-oriented method to obtain detailed information about a topic from a stakeholder. In-depth interviews are a qualitative research method; their goal is to explore in depth a respondent's point of view, experiences, feelings, and perspectives.

  16. (PDF) THE PROCESS OF QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW: PRACTICAL ...

    The steps were (1) ensuring alignment between interview questions and research questions, (2) constructing an inquiry-based conversation, (3) receiving feedback on interview protocols and (4 ...

  17. Qualitative Protocol Guidance and Template

    Qualitative Protocol Guidance and Template ... practice this means satisfying itself the research protocol, research team and the research ... reviewed and a survey and interviews were undertaken to explore what was happening and how to best achieve the potential of federations. This work highlighted that there are various motivations for

  18. [PDF] Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol

    Interviews provide researchers with rich and detailed qualitative data for understanding participants' experiences, how they describe those experiences, and the meaning they make of those experiences (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Given the centrality of interviews for qualitative research, books and articles on conducting research interviews abound. These existing resources typically focus on: the ...

  19. Types of Interviews in Research

    Published on March 10, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023. An interview is a qualitative research method that relies on asking questions in order to collect data. Interviews involve two or more people, one of whom is the interviewer asking the questions.

  20. PDF 242 Assignment 1

    Although interviews are often associated with qualitative research, quantitative data can also be collected via interviews. The goal of this assignment is to develop a draft of an interview protocol useful to collect data for your hypothetical project.

  21. 6 Qualitative Research and Interviews

    6. Qualitative Research and Interviews. So we've described doing a survey and collecting quantitative data. But not all questions can best be answered by a survey. A survey is great for understanding what people think (for example), but not why they think what they do. If your research is intending to understand the underlying motivations or ...

  22. PDF Sample Interview Protocol Form

    1.Briefly describe your role (office, committee, classroom, etc.) as it relates to student learning and assessment (if appropriate). Probes: How are you involved in teaching, learning, and assessment here? How did you get involved? 2. What motivates you to use innovative teaching and/or assessment techniques in yor teaching?

  23. Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the

    The most common methods of data collection used in qualitative research are interviews and focus groups. ... beliefs and motivations of the participant. 3,16 Examples ... A recent protocol paper ...

  24. Fear of depression recurrence among individuals with remitted

    Our interview guide (see Additional File 1) was developed in our laboratory and inspired by existing FIR questionnaires and qualitative interview guides [45, 46]. The first section of the interview was comprised of open-ended questions about participants' history of, and experiences with, MDD, FoDR, and the COVID-19 pandemic (data not reported).