NGT Qualitative Analysis: Pick an HIV Disclosure Aid

Nominal Group Technique produces rapid, auditable stakeholder rankings that reveal feasibility and acceptability tradeoffs when choosing HIV disclosure decision aids.

The Georgia study (n=22, published 16 July 2026) found providers preferred scalable digital formats, while people living with HIV prioritized individualized, peer-led sessions.

• NGT use case: when selection requires both feasibility (provider view) and acceptability (end-user view).
• Study scale: n = 22 stakeholders, split into providers (n = 12) and people living with HIV (PLWH, n = 10).
• Practical output: numeric rankings per participant plus de-identified quotes that support adaptation and hybrid designs.

Nominal Group Technique is a concise consensus method ideal when teams must balance multiple stakeholder perspectives and produce a ranked, auditable outcome quickly.

Nominal Group Technique revealed a clear provider–patient split in Georgia, providers favoured digital tools for scale, while people living with HIV prioritized individualized, peer-led sessions.

• Use case for researchers and UX teams: when selection requires both feasibility (provider view) and acceptability (end-user view).
• Why NGT helps: structured idea generation, followed by independent ranking, reduces dominance bias and yields numeric scores you can analyze across segments.

The study design used two separate 60-minute NGT sessions (providers n=12; PLWH n=10) plus one 40-minute joint session to reconcile rankings.

Before sessions, researchers distilled nine candidate decision aids into one-page summaries: three session-based, three paper-based, and three digital.

• Process steps used: silent idea generation, round-robin listing, structured discussion, independent ranking (3 points per participant), aggregation.
• Data captured: flip-chart notes and de-identified ranking scores; descriptive content analysis summarized themes, no formal codebook was applied.

Follow these seven steps to reproduce the NGT analysis from preparation to a reproducible report.

1) Prepare concise one-page summaries of candidate interventions, as the authors did.

2) Run separate stakeholder NGT sessions, capture ranking cards and audio or notes.

3) Transcribe and redact with a custom dictionary for local terms, then import to your analysis platform.

4) Auto-code themes and extract top ranked items per stakeholder segment.

5) Joint session: present aggregated rankings and theme maps, record consensus decisions.

6) Generate an adaptation checklist and visualizations (co-occurrence networks, theme hierarchies) for implementers.

7) Export a reproducible report and stakeholder appendices for pilot funding or ethics submission.

Mirror the study’s disciplined NGT approach and use AI-assisted tools to remove administrative friction when evaluating decision aids or other sensitive interventions.

Reproduce the Georgia workflow (n=22 stakeholders; published 16 July 2026) and generate the segment-level evidence you need to select, adapt, and pilot an intervention quickly, source: PLoS One.

• Try the workflow in Evidano to ingest transcripts, run thematic and frequency analyses, extract stakeholder quotes, and export an adaptation checklist ready for ethics and implementation teams.
• Want a walkthrough? Contact Evidano to run a pilot on your NGT notes and get a reproducible report for funders and implementers.
• Try Evidano for free