Qualitative Analysis of HIV Disclosure Decision Aids

Key answer: The Georgia NGT (July 16, 2026) prioritized a Family disclosure decision aid and showed that patients favored session-based, peer-involved approaches while providers emphasized scalable digital tools, with final consensus prioritizing PLWH choice.

Concise summary: Separate stakeholder NGTs, quantified rankings, and a joint reconciliation step revealed distinct priorities that should guide adaptation features such as peer educators, legal content, and flexible session length.

• The study sample was n = 22 (12 providers, 10 people living with HIV), recruited Feb 9–Mar 3, 2026, published July 16, 2026 in PLoS One.
• The final consensus prioritized a Family disclosure decision aid delivered session-first (individual sessions, peer educators), reflecting PLWH preferences over provider-preferred digital formats.
• Practical adaptation priorities included peer educators, legal content, and guidance for non-HIV healthcare, plus attention to confidentiality and session timing.

Fast take answer: The study's key numbers, methods, and source are summarized here for quick reference.

• Published: July 16, 2026 (PLoS One).
• Participants: 22 total, 12 HIV care providers (age 35–70), 10 people living with HIV (age 34–55).
• Method: Nominal Group Technique (NGT) with separate provider and PLWH sessions, then a joint consensus session.
• Major finding: PLWH prioritized a Family disclosure decision aid (individual sessions, peer educators); providers preferred structured digital tools but joint consensus prioritized PLWH choice.

Source (full paper): PLoS One

Methods answer: This section explains the study methods and the Nominal Group Technique procedure used in plain English.

Researchers performed a desk review to identify nine evidence-based disclosure decision-support interventions drawn from HIV, mental health, and substance use fields and summarized them on one-page briefs.

Researchers ran two 60-minute NGT sessions, one with providers and one with people living with HIV, each following silent idea generation, round-robin listing, structured discussion, and independent ranking using a 3-point allocation per participant.

Researchers then ran a 40-minute joint session to review both groups' rankings and adaptation suggestions, with the final selection prioritizing PLWH preferences.

• NGT purpose here: produce prioritized, stakeholder-driven choices and concrete adaptation items rather than deep narrative exploration.
• Data were recorded as de-identified notes and ranking scores (no verbatim transcript, study limitation).
• Key trade-off observed: providers emphasize scalability and access, while people living with HIV emphasize trust, confidentiality, and peer involvement.

Implications answer: This section summarizes three practical takeaways from the Georgia NGT for teams doing qualitative analysis or adaptation of disclosure decision aids.

If your team is doing qualitative analysis of HIV disclosure decision aids or planning adaptation work, the Georgia NGT offers three practical takeaways:

• Design for segments: run separate elicitation with providers and end users, then a joint reconciliation step, because rankings reveal different priorities that matter for implementation.
• Collect structured and unstructured data: combine ranking scores (quantified preference) with de-identified discussion notes and verbatim quotes to explain why options were chosen.
• Prioritize adaptability: code for delivery features (format, peer involvement, session timing), legal/rights content, and confidentiality concerns, because these drive local acceptability.

Ethics note: this post is a research-focused summarization only; for clinical or program decisions, follow local IRB and patient-safety guidance.

Checklist answer: This seven-step workflow lets teams reproduce the NGT-informed adaptation process in 2–4 weeks.

Quick workflow you can run in 2–4 weeks:

• 1) Desk review: prepare one-page summaries of candidate interventions (format, evidence, time burden).
• 2) Recruit separately: providers and target users; collect consent and note demographic gaps to address later.
• 3) Run parallel NGTs: same prompts, ranking procedure; capture audio and ranking sheets.
• 4) Process data: transcribe, translate, de-identify. Generate ranking matrices and verbatim extracts tied to reasons.
• 5) Joint session: present aggregated scores and top quotations to reconcile feasibility vs. user preference.
• 6) Adaptation mapping: convert adaptation priorities into a feature list (peer roles, legal info, session timing).
• 7) Pilot plan: define success criteria (feasibility, acceptability, decisional conflict reduction) and implementation constraints.

Tip: Use Evidano to automate steps 4–6 (transcription → thematic + cross-segment analysis → exportable adaptation brief).

Wrap-up answer: The Georgia NGT provides a repeatable model for combining prioritized rankings and qualitative reasoning to adapt HIV disclosure decision aids, and teams can start a pilot-ready analysis now.

The Georgia NGT (July 2026) is a practical model for combining preference ranking and qualitative reasoning when adapting disclosure decision aids.

• Start a pilot-ready adaptation brief by uploading your transcripts and ranking sheets to Evidano, get thematic, frequency, and cross-segment reports you can share with funders and implementers.
• If you need a reproducible template, Evidano can generate adaptation-ready visuals and anonymized quote banks to speed IRB and stakeholder review.

Ready to turn NGT notes into action? Try Evidano for free.