Faster Qualitative Analysis: HIV disclosure decision aids

This post explains how to convert NGT field notes and ranking scores into a prioritized adaptation plan in days using AI-enabled tools while preserving nuance and confidentiality.

• Zurashvili et al. published a short NGT study on 16 July 2026 (n=22; providers=12, PLWH=10) and the joint group prioritized adapting the Family disclosure decision aid.
• Providers in the study favored digital scalability, while people living with HIV (PLWH) preferred individual or session-based support.
• The practical workflow converts flip-chart items, notes, and rankings into a reproducible adaptation checklist within a 2-week runbook using Evidano.

The authors ran three NGT sessions and used pre-prepared summaries and independent rankings to prioritize an adaptation, publishing their findings in PLoS One on 16 July 2026.

The authors ran three NGT sessions (providers, PLWH, joint) using pre-prepared one-page summaries of nine candidate interventions grouped into session-, paper-, and digital formats. Participants silently generated ideas, shared them round-robin, discussed, and independently ranked formats and interventions. Notes (de-identified) and ranking scores were aggregated and summarized via descriptive content analysis.

• Divergence: providers emphasized accessibility and scalability through digital formats, while PLWH emphasized trust, privacy, and peer involvement in session-based formats.
• Adaptation priorities collected from participants included peer educators, locally relevant legal and treatment content, flexible session length (individual first, group later), and guidance for disclosure to non-HIV healthcare providers.
• Limitation flagged by the authors: younger PLWH were under-represented and discussions were captured in field notes rather than verbatim transcripts.

The runbook is a day-by-day checklist to turn de-identified NGT notes and rankings into an adaptation plan within 14 days.

• Day 0–1: Gather inputs: de-identified NGT notes, ranking spreadsheets, one-page intervention summaries, and any audio. Confirm consent and IRB constraints.
• Day 1–2: Ingest and preprocess: upload files to Evidano, run PII redaction, and (if audio) auto-transcribe with a custom dictionary for local terms.
• Day 2–4: Thematic extraction: auto-generate themes, import an initial codebook, and refine with one to two human-pass edits.
• Day 4–6: Cross-segment analysis: compute theme frequencies, rank concordance, and extract representative quotes per segment (providers versus PLWH).
• Day 6–9: Co-occurrence and network checks: map which themes cluster (for example, 'peer support' plus 'trust' plus 'session-based').
• Day 9–11: Synthesis and adaptation checklist: produce prioritized changes (peer involvement, legal content, session sequencing).
• Day 11–14: Stakeholder brief and shares: export visuals, a one-page memo, and run a short AI chat over the corpus to answer anticipated funder or IRB questions.

Ethics and participant safety require separating consent forms, scrubbing identifiers, and following IRB guidance before sharing outputs.

• The study authors removed direct and indirect identifiers before data sharing in the study’s supporting information.

Zurashvili et al. (16 July 2026) show that a short NGT study yields clear priorities for adaptation, and the operational gap is turning notes and rankings into reproducible adaptation plans quickly.

• Ready to try this on your NGT notes or interview transcripts? Run the 2-week workflow above and produce an adaptation checklist and stakeholder brief in days using Try Evidano for free.
• If you need a secure pilot: ingest de-identified notes, run theme and cross-segment analyses, and export visuals that decision-makers can act on immediately (see Evidano).