Identifying Unmet Needs in Major Depressive Disorder Using a Computer-Assisted Alternative to Conventional Thematic Analysis: Qualitative Interview Study With Psychiatrists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of digital health tools that are clinically relevant requires a deep understanding of the unmet needs of stakeholders, such as clinicians and patients. One way to reveal unforeseen stakeholder needs is through qualitative research, including stakeholder interviews. However, conventional qualitative data analytical approaches are time-consuming and resource-intensive, rendering them untenable in many industry settings where digital tools are conceived of and developed. Thus, a more time-efficient process for identifying clinically relevant target needs for digital tool development is needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to address the need for an accessible, simple, and time-efficient alternative to conventional thematic analysis of qualitative research data through text analysis of semistructured interview transcripts. In addition, we sought to identify important themes across expert psychiatrist advisor interview transcripts to efficiently reveal areas for the development of digital tools that target unmet clinical needs. METHODS: We conducted 10 (1-hour-long) semistructured interviews with US-based psychiatrists treating major depressive disorder. The interviews were conducted using an interview guide that comprised open-ended questions predesigned to (1) understand the clinicians' experience of the care management process and (2) understand the clinicians' perceptions of the patients' experience of the care management process. We then implemented a hybrid analytical approach that combines computer-assisted text analyses with deductive analyses as an alternative to conventional qualitative thematic analysis to identify word combination frequencies, content categories, and broad themes characterizing unmet needs in the care management process. RESULTS: Using this hybrid computer-assisted analytical approach, we were able to identify several key areas that are of interest to clinicians in the context of major depressive disorder and would be appropriate targets for digital tool development. CONCLUSIONS: A hybrid approach to qualitative research combining computer-assisted techniques with deductive techniques provides a time-efficient approach to identifying unmet needs, targets, and relevant themes to inform digital tool development. This can increase the likelihood that useful and practical tools are built and implemented to ultimately improve health outcomes for patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".