Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The interview is essential and the most dominant method for data collection in phenomenological health research. Since several practical guides and best practice examples can be found in the scientific literature, the present review aims to map the nature and use of interviews in phenomenological healthcare research, focusing on their application, characteristics, and theoretical underpinnings. This review adhered to Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews and utilised the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Eligible studies included those with a phenomenological or phenomenological-oriented approach employing interviews for data gathering. A systematic search across CINAHL, MEDLINE, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and MedicLatina identified 125 studies published by December 2022. Data were extracted and analysed using calibrated forms, followed by a narrative synthesis and tabular presentation. Findings reveal a predominance of hermeneutic or interpretive phenomenology, with most studies employing in-depth, semi-structured, or unstructured interviews to explore topics such as chronic health conditions, caregiving, mental health, and professional experiences. Patients were the most frequently studied population (55%), with nurses and midwives accounting for 82% of first authors. Despite the alignment with phenomenological goals, significant gaps were identified: 60% of studies lacked explicit theoretical frameworks for interviews, raising concerns about methodological rigour and coherence. Reflexive practices, participant validation, and triangulation were employed to address interviewer subjectivity and enhance credibility. However, inconsistencies in applying phenomenological principles were evident, with some studies mixing methods or deviating from foundational philosophies. This review underscores the transformative potential of phenomenological interviews in healthcare research while highlighting significant methodological gaps. Future studies should prioritise integrating theoretical foundations and rigorously applying phenomenological principles to enhance the exploration of lived experience and advance the field. Based on authors and more consensual practices, some practical recommendations for conducting phenomenological interviews are presented.

Keywords

health care research qualitative research phenomenology interview

Introduction

Phenomenological research seeks to understand the deeper and intricate meaning of individuals’ experiences, considering the uniqueness of each phenomenon. Although several strands and traditions of phenomenological research has developed throughout the years, what distinguishes it from most qualitative methods is its deeply philosophical motivation. “At the heart of phenomenology is a philosophically consuming fascination with the question of the origin, sources, and meaning of meaning and meaningfulness” (Van Manen, 2016, p. 74). Phenomenology aims not only to describe idiosyncratic experiences—the personal experience of the here and now—but also to capture the invariant structures of experience, exploring its essential structures and conditions of possibility. Phenomenology, therefore, aims to unveil structures that are intersubjectively accessible.

A key aspect of phenomenological research involves collecting experiential material, which can be achieved through various methods such as interviews, observation, participation, fictional stories, and personal accounts (Van Manen, 2016). Among these, interviews are the most common method in qualitative research (Taylor, 2005; Thelwall & Nevill, 2021). When conducted appropriately, an interview can be a source of knowledge that is as reliable and valid as quantitative or experimental methods (Høffding et al., 2022). On this note, preparing for, conducting, and analysing interviews are essential steps in phenomenological studies.

Interviews conducted in studies using phenomenological methods are a critical tool for researchers to comprehend the nature and meaningful structures of phenomena. They require a mixture of personal skill and learned methodology, straddling the line between art and technique. While there is a tendency to perceive interviewing purely as an art based on the interviewer’s inherent personality traits, this viewpoint is only partly valid (Seidman, 2019). Researchers can acquire the necessary techniques and skills through training, as the researcher is the primary instrument of inquiry (Kvale, 2007). Therefore, this approach requires both the methodological rigour of science and the personal touch of a craftsman (Kvale, 2007). By combining these elements, interviewers can navigate the subtleties of human interaction while upholding the systematic integrity of the research process (Kvale, 2007; Seidman, 2019).

Phenomenological interviews generally concentrate on the main question of the research and are structured as a dialogical encounter between the interviewer and the interviewee (Guerrero-Castañeda et al., 2017). They aim to capture how a phenomenon is perceived by the individual, revealing subjective meanings through their awareness and narrative. This moment of interaction between the dyad (interviewer and interviewee) represents an intersubjective relationship embodied in a dialogue that, facilitated by the various languages involved, yields the development of a comprehensive structure of the experienced phenomenon.

Hence, the interview in a phenomenological investigation is a highly dynamic and interactive process: the interviewer tries to guide the interviewee to increasingly accurate descriptions of his/her lived experience. Thus, the interviewer assumes interpretative responsibility: first, generating detailed descriptions by providing reliable and valid data (regarding transparency and consistency) and second, interpreting what these descriptions mean (Høffding et al., 2022). In this sense, the interviewer should assume a second-person perspective. According to Zahavi and Rochat (2015), this involves a subject-subject relationship where the interviewer is aware of the interviewee and, simultaneously, implicitly aware of themselves as attended to or addressed by the other. The knowledge generated in this encounter is interactive and co-created, with both participants contributing through complex dynamics driven by reciprocal interaction (Høffding & Martiny, 2016).

Healthcare settings stand out as a ubiquitous source of profound human experiences, compelling researchers and healthcare professionals to employ phenomenological methods. These methods are instrumental in unveiling the “hidden” lived experience of those needing healthcare, disclosing the profound impact of their work. Interviews in phenomenological healthcare research require a combination of personal skill and learned methodology, balancing the art of human interaction with the rigour of systematic inquiry (Kvale, 2007; Seidman, 2019). The encounter between interviewer and interviewee in healthcare research involves sharing memories, describing, reflecting and asking questions (Høffding & Martiny, 2016). This necessitates the ability to make all descriptions in the established connection clear and understandable. This co-created knowledge reflects the richness and complexity of human experiences in healthcare.

Several practical guides in the scientific literature and many examples of best practices are available, as reported by Høffding and Martiny (2016), including works by authors such as Brinkmann and Kvale (2014), Allen-Collinson (2009), and Flyvbjerg (2011). Nevertheless, interviews in phenomenological research may fall short of these recommended practices. Despite the expectation that a phenomenological research approach would involve conducting a phenomenological interview for data collection, the procedures do not consistently align with the principles of phenomenological philosophy (Thomas, 2021). Awareness of how interviews are conducted in phenomenological healthcare research provides insights into their pitfalls, shortcomings, possibilities, and potential.

Given the stated importance, the present scoping review aims to map the nature and use of interviews in phenomenological healthcare research. Upon conducting a comprehensive search of PROSPERO, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and JBI Evidence Synthesis, it was evident that there is no ongoing scoping or systematic reviews about the stated topic. This review, therefore, fills a significant gap in the current research landscape, providing valuable insights for researchers, healthcare professionals, and academics in the field.

Review Questions

Starting from the central question - What is the nature and use of interviews in phenomenological healthcare research? - the following review questions align with the aim of this study:

(1) What are the characteristics of the interview in phenomenological healthcare research?

(2) What are the theoretical foundations of the study research design in healthcare research?

(3) What are the theoretical foundations of interviews in phenomenological healthcare research?

(4) What are the topics studied using interviews in phenomenological healthcare research?

(5) What is the selection process of the interviewees?

(6) How is the interviewer’s subjectivity considered in the interview in phenomenological healthcare research?

Methods

We selected the review method based on the specific aim of this review, which is to map out the various considerations involved in the nature and use of interviews in phenomenological healthcare research. Our goal is to clarify how interviews are utilized across the literature and how they are conducted. To achieve this, we followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020) and used the PRISMA ScR Checklist (Tricco et al., 2018) as our guiding framework for the review. The review protocol has been registered and is available on an online platform, ensuring full transparency in our process.

Our eligibility criteria followed the PCC framework, which stands for Population, Concept, and Context. We did not need to establish specific criteria for the Population item. The criteria were as follows:

• Concept: This scoping review focused on phenomenological or phenomenological-oriented research studies that utilize interviews for data gathering.

• Context: This scoping review considered studies in any context of healthcare research.

• Types of studies: This scoping review included qualitative and mixed-method designs incorporating phenomenological approaches. We limited sources to English, Portuguese, French, and Spanish; the data was limited to literature available until December 31^st, 2022.

Search Strategy

Our search strategy was a collaborative effort, with the research team making informed decisions at each stage. We began on the January 3^rd, 2023, with an initial limited search of MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost) and CINAHL (via EBSCOhost) to identify articles on the topic, using the initial terms - phenomenolog* AND interview. Three reviewers analysed the records, assessing relevant terms to include in a broad but focused search strategy formula. The second stage involved performing the search strategy formula in the chosen databases (see Table 1), which were: CINAHL complete (via EBSCOhost); MEDLINE complete (via EBSCOhost); Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection (via EBSCOhost); and MedicLatina (via EBSCOhost). We initially planned to use a three-step search strategy to find published primary studies, but instead, we followed the first two steps of the search strategy recommended by JBI methodology (Peters et al., 2020). After completing the second stage of the search, our research team determined that if we proceeded with the final step of the search established by JBI, which involved browsing the reference lists of included documents for additional relevant sources, the amount of data to manage and extract would be overwhelming.

Table 1.

Example of Search Strategy in a Database

Example of Search Strategy CINAHL

[(Qualitative research OR Descriptive stud* OR Descriptive research OR Hermeneutic stud* OR Interpretative research OR Interpretative stud* OR Phenomenological stud*OR Phenomenological research) AND (Interview OR Dialogue OR In-depth interview OR Interview* training OR Method* training OR Phenomenological interview* OR phenomenological methodology OR Phenomenology OR Research interview) AND (Health OR Health Care Research OR Healthcare Research OR Research, Health Care OR Research, Healthcare OR Nursing OR Nursing research OR Research, Nursing OR Psychology OR Psycholog*research OR Research, Psycholog* OR Psychiatry OR Psychiatr* research OR Research, Psychiatr* OR Psychotherapy OR Psychotherapy research OR Research, psychotherapy OR Physiotherapy OR Physiotherapy research OR Research, physiotherapy OR Qualitative research)]

Study Selection

After identifying the records through the databases, we uploaded them into Rayyan® to remove duplicates and coordinate the selection process among reviewers, establishing three teams of two reviewers. Then, we conducted a pilot test with 15 articles, and each team screened the titles and abstracts of 5 articles to assess their eligibility for the review. After confirming and re-evaluating the selection process in a team research meeting, each team of reviewers was responsible for screening a set of titles and abstracts and identify potentially relevant papers. Any reviewers’ disagreements were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. The identified relevant papers were then retrieved in full text for further assessment by two teams of reviewers, who divided the records, assessed them independently within the team, and gathered consensus. Reasons for exclusion of full-text papers that did not meet the inclusion criteria were recorded and reported.

Data Extraction

The data from the included studies were analysed and extracted based on the defined aim and review questions. Two reviewers initially tested an Excel® form for data extraction, working independently and comparing results from 10 records, establishing an organization of the data into seven different excel tables (see Supplemental Material). Subsequently, the remaining records were divided into three teams of two reviewers. Each team member independently extracted the data, resolving disagreements through discussion or with the help of a third reviewer. Regarding the information extracted through the Excel® forms, we included:

- Supplemental Table I: Identification of all studies (title, author, publication year, country of origin, source, and study aims).

- Supplemental Table II - Characteristics of the phenomenological interview

- Supplemental Table III - Theoretical foundations of the study research design

- Supplemental Table IV - Theoretical foundations of interviews

- Supplemental Table V - Topics studied

- Supplemental Table VI - Selection process of the interviewees

- Supplemental Table VII - How is the interviewer subjectivity taken in account

Data Analysis and Presentation

Data analysis and presentation included tabular forms to display the relevant data, providing a thorough overview of each included paper. A narrative synthesis, complemented by content analysis, was employed to enhance comprehension and visualization of our scoping review’s aim, with results presented in tables and organized according to the review questions. Therefore, we organized results into seven sections: summary of included studies, interview characteristics, study theoretical foundations, interview theoretical foundations, topics studied, selection process for interviewees, and interviewer subjectivity. To enhance the clarity and readability of the results, we present the included studies’ references only when we consider them relevant.

Results

We identified 1,454 records from the chosen databases. After removing 386 duplicates, we screened 1,068 titles and abstracts, identifying 140 as potentially relevant papers. Upon retrieving and screening the full-texts, 125 papers were included, and 15 were excluded with reasons provided. The search results are presented in accordance with the PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA Flow Diagram

Summary of Included Studies

The characteristics of the included studies address the following categories: country of publication, continent of publication, publication year, professional or scientific background of the first author, and study participants.

In terms of country of publication (refer to Table 2), Iran has the highest number of studies, contributing twenty-three (18%). Together, Iran and the UK represent forty studies (32%), which is almost one-third of the total. Along with USA, with twelve (10%) and Australia with eleven (9%), these four countries account for half of the studies, totalling sixty-three (50%). Norway and the Republic of Korea each have eight studies, Denmark has seven, and Canada has five (accounting for 6% and 4% respectively). Spain and Taiwan each contribute with four studies (3%), while Iceland and Sweden have three each one (2%). Among the remaining fifteen countries, five have two studies each, and ten have one study.

Table 2.

Distribution of Studies by Country of Publication

Country	N	%
Iran	23	18
UK	17	14
USA	12	10
Australia	11	9
Norway	8	6
Republic of Korea	8	6
Denmark	7	6
Canada	5	4
Spain	4	3
Taiwan	4	3
Iceland	3	2
Sweden	3	2
Belgium	2	2
China	2	2
Ireland	2	2
New Zealand	2	2
Turkey	2	2
Greece	1	1
India	1	1
Indonesia	1	1
Lebanon	1	1
Northern Ireland	1	1
Saudi Arabia	1	1
South Africa	1	1
Sri Lanka	1	1
Thailand	1	1
The Netherlands	1	1
	125	100%

Based on the data presented in Table 3, it is evident that Europe is the most represented continent, with forty-nine studies (39%) conducted across eleven countries, the majority of which originated from the United Kingdom. Asia follows with forty-five studies (36%) from eleven countries, while North America has seventeen studies (14%) from two countries. Oceania contributed thirteen articles (10%) from two countries, and Africa had one study from one country. There were no studies from South America.

Table 3.

Distribution of Studies by Continent of Publication

Continent	Country	Number of publications	Total
Europe	UK	17	49 (39%)
	Norway	8
	Denmark	7
	Spain	4
	Iceland	3
	Sweden	3
	Belgium	2
	Ireland	2
	Greece	1
	Northern Ireland	1
	The Netherlands	1
Asia	Iran	23	45 (36%)
	Republic of Korea	8
	Taiwan	4
	China	2
	Turkey	2
	India	1
	Indonesia	1
	Lebanon	1
	Saudi Arabia	1
	Sri Lanka	1
	Thailand	1
North America	USA	12	17 (14%)
North America	Canada	5	17 (14%)
Oceania	Australia	11	13 (10%)
Oceania	New Zealand	2	13 (10%)
Africa	South Africa	1	1 (1%)
		125	100%

In Table 4, the publication year demonstrates a consistent growth pattern from 1995 to 2022. The number of articles published between 1995 and 2001 amounted to fourteen (11%), while the figure rose to fifty-five (44%) for the period between 2016 and 2022.

Table 4.

Number of Studies by Publication Year

	N	%
2016–2022	55	44
2009–2015	35	28
2002–2008	21	17
1995–2001	14	11
	125	100%

According to the professional and/or scientific background of the first author of each study, Table 5 indicates that the majority are Nurses or Midwives, accounting for one hundred and two articles (82%) in total. Counsellors, psychologists, or psychotherapists are the first authors in sixteen studies (13%), and medical doctors are the first authors in three studies (2%). In two studies (2%) the first author has a degree in philosophy. Additionally, in one study (1%), the first author is a physiotherapist, and in another (1%), the first author has a degree in sociology.

Table 5.

Professional or Scientific Background of the First Author

Nurses or midwives	Counsellors, psychologists or psychotherapists	Medical doctors	Philosophy	Physiotherapist	Sociology
102	16	3	2	1	1
82%	13%	2%	2%	1%	1%

Most participants in the studies were patients, accounting for sixty-nine studies (55%), as indicated in Table 6. Twenty-five studies (20%) involved nurses and midwives. Fifteen studies (12%) included family members and caregivers as participants. The groups of counsellors, psychologists or psychotherapists; patients and health professionals; and health professionals alone were part of five studies (4%) each. Additionally, one study (1%) had both patients and families as participants.

Table 6.

Participant Characteristics in Included Studies

Patients	Nurses or midwives	Family and caregivers	Counsellors, psychologists or psychotherapists	Patients and health professionals	Health professionals	Patients and family
69	25	15	5	5	5	1
55%	20%	12%	4%	4%	4%	1%

Interview Characteristics

We conducted a comprehensive analysis of the interview characteristics, focusing on several key factors: the number of participants, the frequency of interviews per participant, their duration, depth, openness, and the medium used (e.g., face-to-face, remote, ...).

The number of participants interviewed in each study varied significantly. One study included 141 participants (Toh et al., 2020), while another analysed 103 verbatim responses (Navab et al., 2013). In the remaining 123 studies (98%), the number of participants ranged from 4 (e.g., Russell et al., 2010) to 60 (Callister, 1995). The statistical mode, which indicates the most common number of participants, was found to be 10 per study, as reported in fourteen studies (11%).

Regarding the frequency of interviews, ninety studies (72%) either did not specify the number of interviews conducted per participant or reported conducting only one interview. In contrast, thirty-five studies (28%) indicated that multiple interviews were conducted with all or some participants, seeking a deeper engagement with the phenomena being investigated. The duration of interviews also showed notable variation across the studies. Thirty-six studies (29%) did not include details on interview duration. Among those that did report, the minimum duration ranged from 7 minutes in one study (Mclachlan et al., 2012) to 90 minutes in four studies (e.g., Hamid et al., 2021). In twenty-six studies (21%), the minimum duration fell between 30 and 60 minutes. The maximum durations varied as well, ranging from 40 minutes (Dadkhahtehrani et al., 2018) to 240 minutes (Fielden, 2003). Thirty-two studies (26%) reported maximum durations between 30 and 60 minutes, while twenty-eight studies (22%) reported durations ranging from 60 to 90 minutes.

In examining depth and openness, one hundred studies (80%) explicitly indicated the use of in-depth interviews, demonstrating their commitment to exploring participants’ lived experience comprehensively. The openness of the interviews was another important characteristic: sixty-nine studies (55%) employed semi-structured interviews, while sixteen studies used terms such as “interview schedule,” “interview guide,” or “themes” to describe approaches involving open-ended questions without explicitly stating the use of semi-structured interviews. Additionally, forty studies (32%) adopted unstructured interviews, and in twenty-two studies (18%), the interviews were described as dialogues or conversations. Furthermore, forty-two studies (34%) focused on eliciting participants’ experiences related to the research topic, with twenty-three studies (18%) directly requesting descriptions of participants’ experiences. In the remaining studies, questions were designed to explore participants’ narratives, meanings, or stories. Sixteen studies (13%) provided no information regarding the openness of the interviews.

Finally, concerning the means of communication used for interviews, the majority were conducted face-to-face. However, thirteen studies (10%) documented online or telephone interviews, two reporting interviews entirely online, and eleven a combination of online and telephone interviews.

Study Theoretical Foundations

The reviewed studies reveal various philosophical or theoretical influences that guide the researchers’ selection of research design methodologies, going beyond the traditional descriptive or interpretive (also known as hermeneutic) approaches to phenomenology (Sloan & Bowe, 2014).

Thirty-three articles (26%) used a phenomenological approach. Notable influences include Colaizzi (1978), cited in thirteen studies, and Van Manen (1990), referenced in eleven studies. Giorgi (1985, 2009) and Giorgi and Giorgi (2003) are referenced in four studies, Heidegger in three studies, and Koch (1995, 1996) in two studies. Referenced in a single study, we encountered Husserl, the Vancouver School of Doing Phenomenology, Polkinghorne (1983), Schutz (1970), Merleau-Ponty, Parse (1998), Van Kaam’s (1966) method, and the Utrecht School of Phenomenology.

Sixty-four articles (51%) are based on hermeneutic/interpretive phenomenology as their theoretical foundation. The most influential author in this approach is Van Manen (1990), who was referenced in nineteen studies. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) developed by Smith and Osborn (2008) and by Smith et al. (2009) influenced fourteen studies. Heidegger is cited in twelve studies, while Gadamer appears in nine. Benner’s interpretive phenomenology (1994) is used in five studies, alongside Ricoeur (1973), which is also referenced in five studies. Other contributors include Koch (1995, 1996) in two studies, Diekelmann et al. (1989) in two studies, and Allen et al. (1986) in two studies. Additionally, Diekelmann and Ironside (1998) are referenced in one study, as are Giorgi and Giorgi (2003) and Dahlberg et al. (2008).

A descriptive phenomenology design was employed in seventeen articles (14%). Influences on this approach included Colaizzi (1978), cited in nine studies; Husserl, referenced in three; and Giorgi (2009), used in two. Additionally, one study utilized Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis, while another study included works by Burns and Grove (2005), Brink (1996), and Polit and Beck (2004). Notably, one study did not cite any authors (Nelson et al., 2021). Other approaches to phenomenology are presented in one or two studies of the included articles, namely Psychological Phenomenology (Ahn et al., 2014; Anthony, 2008); Empirical Phenomenological Analysis/Approach (Du et al., 2022; Gee & Loewenthal, 2011); Transcendental Phenomenology (Limberg et al., 2018); Existential Phenomenology (McCurry &Thomas, 2002); Ethno-Phenomenology (Arghavanian et al., 2020); Phenomenological nursology (Mohamadi et al., 2022). One study refers to a phenomenological understanding of auditory verbal hallucinations integrating a mixed-methods design, which encompasses a qualitative thematic analysis of participants’ experiences (Toh et al., 2020).

Interview Theoretical Foundations

This scoping review seeks to understand how interview is conceptualised and utilised within a phenomenological framework in healthcare research, highlighting the importance of identifying the theoretical underpinnings that guide the interview. Seventy-five (60%) of the studies do not explicitly reference any theoretical foundations for their interview framework, indicating a gap in the explicit articulation of theoretical grounding between study design and data collection.

Several approaches are evident among the studies that provide theoretical context. Specifically, nine studies (7%) adopt a phenomenological approach. Among these, Van Manen (1990, 1997, 2016) is cited in three studies, while two studies do not reference any specific author. Additionally, individual studies reference Parse (1998), Colaizzi (1978), and other authors. Hermeneutic/Interpretive Phenomenology is used in eleven studies (9%), with researchers following the guidance of Van Manen (1990, 1997) in seven studies. Other authors are referenced within this framework, but only in one study, such as Dahlberg et al. (2008). Moreover, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is prominent, with eight studies (6%) utilising this method to conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews as detailed by authors such as Smith et al. (2009) and Smith and Osborn (2008). Three studies (2%) outline the descriptive phenomenological method, which employs Colaizzi’s (1978) method and Empirical Phenomenological Analysis is utilised explicitly in one study (0.8%), following Giorgi (1985). Twenty-one studies (17%) employ a broader qualitative inquiry approach. They frequently reference methodologists like Kvale (2007), Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), and Polit and Beck (2004).

Topics Studied

The use of interviews in phenomenological healthcare research reveals diverse and in-depth topics. This scoping review includes 125 studies organised into six main themes, which we describe in the following sections.

Chronic and Specific Health Conditions (21 Studies, 17%)

This theme covers the daily challenges and personal struggles of individuals with chronic and specific health conditions. It includes studies on conditions like irritable bowel syndrome, haemodialysis, osteoporosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, various cancer experiences, HIV, and post-stroke depressive symptoms.

Patients’ Healthcare Experiences (15 Studies, 12%)

This theme explores patient experiences in healthcare settings, from routine interactions to specialised care. It includes studies on bed baths, medical teaching, ICU transitions, discharge processes, rehabilitation, emotional expression in oncology wards, and experiences with palliative care.

Mental Health and Psychological Support (17 Studies, 14%)

This theme delves into mental health challenges and support mechanisms. It covers experiences related to suicide attempts, self-harm, gambling addiction, bipolar disorder, auditory hallucinations, psychosis recovery, online therapy, and successful psychotherapy outcomes.

Healthcare Professional Experiences (34 Studies, 27%)

This theme examines the experiences of healthcare providers, focusing on professional practice and ethical decision-making. It includes studies on counsellors, midwives, nurses, case managers, psychotherapists, and healthcare professionals dealing with infectious diseases, namely COVID-19, and critical decision-making in oncology.

Family and Caregiving Experiences (26 Studies, 21%)

This theme highlights the emotional and practical challenges of caregiving. It includes studies on family caregivers for various conditions, experiences in nursing homes, the impact of losing a family member to suicide, and the diverse experiences of parents and caregivers.

Cultural and Societal Issues (14 Studies, 11%)

This theme explores the cultural and societal impacts on healthcare experiences. It includes studies on migrant parents, multicultural family dynamics in ICUs, loneliness in nursing homes, spiritual care, healthcare in prisons, and the challenges faced by refugees and healthcare professionals in conflict zones.

Selection Process of the Interviewees

In the selection process for interviewees, one hundred and nine studies (87%) utilized purposive sampling to enhance homogeneity among participants. In six studies (8%), a purposive sampling method with maximum variation was chosen to ensure that participants had relevant experience to enhance the study’s richness by seeking potentially diverse perspectives. Many studies outline the purposive inclusion criteria for sampling and consider the researcher’s convenience in accessing participants. This approach allows for the selection of individuals based on the specific objectives of the research.

In eleven studies (13.8%), participants were selected using a snowball sampling approach, building on existing contacts and new leads. For example, additional participants were obtained through word-of-mouth referrals from the other participants.

Twelve studies state that the sample size in qualitative studies typically relies on “data saturation,” a point where no new data emerges. In this case, the number of participants was unknown in advance, and the interviews continued until data saturation was achieved. If the researcher felt a need to increase the depth and extent of data collection, participants who were willing were reinterviewed.

Interviewer Subjectivity

The interviewer’s subjectivity is considered in the phenomenological interview in health research by a reflexive statement in thirty-three studies (26.4%). The reflexive statement is described as a document written in the first person, where preconceived assumptions and expectations are recorded before meeting the study data to prevent subjective biases. This reflexive statement can also include the authors’ personal experience of the phenomenon being studied. The authors could refer to this document repeatedly during the research and so twenty-two studies (17.6%) refer that after each interview, field notes were written concerning environmental circumstances, participant characteristics, nonverbal behaviours, affect, discussion process, rapport, impressions, and any problems.

Another strategy to reduce the interviewer’s subjectivity was the support of the other research team members in validating procedures and decisions. In forty-seven studies (36.8%), researchers conducted the analysis independently and later discussed, extended, and validated it in focused sessions. This process of collaborative analysis was employed to assure rigor and prevent biases. Several studies refer that a selection of anonymised transcripts was independently read and coded by a third party, like the study’s second author. In this way, the study procedure and data coding were done under the supervision of a qualitative research expert with a nursing or social sciences background. Moreover, authors state the credibility of the findings through independent analyses conducted by each team member separately, followed by comparing the process of themes and interpretations. In this process, the initial codes and the categories were also audited by the second author, commonly a faculty professor expert in phenomenological studies. The authors believe the study’s credibility was assessed by having the results analysed by other research team members and through peer-debriefing.

Twenty-two studies (17.6%) mention the importance of participants’ validation regarding the content of the transcript. In these studies participants were given the opportunity to read the verbatim to check the accuracy of the document and correct misinterpreted meanings during the data analysis. This approach enables the researcher to believe the findings are a true reflection of participants experiences.

To establish rapport with participants, in eighteen studies (14.4%), the researchers sought to improve their interpersonal competencies, such as doing a mindfulness course, so participants could lead the conversation, while researchers mainly listened and facilitated the conversation. Thus, listening intently during interviews and asking probing questions constitutes the means to obtain rich and comprehensive data. To ensure that the findings represent the participants’ views and experiences as closely as possible it was employed a reflexive, open-minded approach, allowing the data to challenge and change their own world views, using a concurrent member checking during the interviews (using phrases such as “my understanding of what you are saying is…”) to enable participant and researcher to reach a mutual understanding.

Furthermore, the researchers and participants did not have relationships and met only during the research process. Neutral attitudes were also adopted during this process to avoid becoming involved in the participants’ interactions or subjectively accepting or rejecting the data. Seven studies utilized triangulation by employing multiple information-gathering strategies, including interviews and observations. Detailed field notes were recorded immediately after each interview and observation session.

Discussion

Overall, we verified a growing interest in the use of interviews in phenomenological healthcare research (that did not fade in the pandemic years). Nurses and midwives account for the majority of studies, significantly outpacing contributions from counsellors, psychologists, and psychotherapists. While there has been criticism regarding the use of phenomenology in nursing research, it is evident that the need to ensure humane clinical practices drives nurses to rely on phenomenology (Norlyk et al., 2023). Regarding the philosophical roots of most studies, which stem from the continental philosophy tradition (e.g., authors such as Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty), Europe is the continent most represented in the provenance of the included studies. Nevertheless, in terms of the country of publication, Iran emerges as the country of origin of most of the studies, which comes as a surprise. To that point, Adib-Hajbaghery et al. (2021) state that nursing research in Iran has undergone significant improvements, with an increase in nursing research centres and nursing-specific scientific research journals. Further, they report that qualitative studies of Iranian nurses became more common in the 2010s, suggesting a need for further exploration of regional research trends. When looking at the study participants, patients account for over half of the studies, which emphasises the importance of phenomenological interviews in capturing human experiences (Picton et al., 2017). Conversely, healthcare professionals and families are less frequently studied populations, revealing that phenomenological interviews are particularly useful for understanding the patient’s lifeworld, which is essential for caring and supporting human beings’ health processes (Dahlberg et al., 2008).

Regarding the number of participants, our review highlights a considerable discussion in the literature concerning the ideal sample size for uncovering a phenomenon (Nelms, 2015). Consequently, the variation in the number of participants interviewed is significant, with 98% of the studies indicating participant counts ranging from 4 to 60, which represents a broad spectrum for phenomenological inquiry. While these studies were included due to their explicit use of interviews labelled as phenomenological, large sample sizes fundamentally challenge the feasibility and methodological rigour of conducting phenomenological research. Studies with a large number of participants risk reducing interviews to shallow representations of experience, potentially undermining the philosophical orientation of phenomenology and raising questions about whether they can genuinely produce phenomenological findings.

Indeed, prominent authors have made suggestions regarding the number of participants in phenomenological research studies. For example, Colaizzi (1978) states that although the number of participants varies depending on several factors, such as the richness of the data each participant shares, suggesting 12 participants as an average number. IPA, Smith and Colleagues (2009) advocate for small, homogeneous sample sizes, defining idiography as a major influence that reflects a methodological stance upholding the intrinsic value of engaging deeply with a single case as a meaningful entity in and of itself. According to Giorgi’s methodology (2009), no predetermined sample size is required, with a minimum of three participants considered sufficient as long participants’ descriptions of the phenomena entail richness and variability. Similarly, Dahlberg and Colleagues (2008) propose beginning with approximately five interviews, emphasising the importance of variation over quantity. Hence, the focus on the richness and variation of data rather than its volume is echoed in the reflective lifeworld approach, which seeks to uncover the general structure of a phenomenon based on diverse variations in the data. A significant implication of this perspective is that the concept of data saturation is often deemed inapplicable in phenomenology, as meanings are considered infinite and continuously expanding (Dowling, 2007; Van Manen, 1990, 2016). Nevertheless, we found studies still included data saturation as a threshold for the selection process of interviewees. In this matter, we must consider the prevailing purposive sampling method in the included studies. This method aimed to ensure that participants aligned with the research objectives, facilitated convenience in recruitment, and achieved homogeneity among participants. Even though this type of non-random sample seeks to gather participants who are representative of the population involved in the study, phenomenology does not endorse generalisation of findings (Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022; Van Manen, 2016). Van Manen (2016) recognises that purposive sampling refers to the selection of interviewees or participants based on their knowledge and ability to articulate the group or (sub)culture to which they belong. Even so, he has criticised the use of “sample” or “sampling” in defining the number or even the criteria for choosing diverse participants. Assuming that certain individual variables (such as age and gender) entail diverse experiential perspectives, so that including a diverse enough sample can reach the point of “saturation” (i.e., the limit of meanings) is to assume a predetermined conceptualisation of the experience and deny the epoché. Regardless, 8% of the studies referred to establishing maximum variation sampling by defining variability criteria among the participants of interest intended to enhance diversity related to the research question, i.e., a broader representation of participants’ lived experiences (Cresswell & Poth, 2018; Patton, 2002). To this point, Van Manen (2016) refrains from recommending a specific number of participants as well as criteria or selective considerations to determine how many descriptions of the phenomena are needed to unveil their lived meanings. The only premise for selecting participants is to choose individuals who can express their lived experiences in oral or written accounts (Van Manen, 2016). Now, regarding the number of participants and interviews, it depends on the specific aims and design of the phenomenological inquiry - “the general aim should be to gather enough experientially rich accounts that make possible the figuration of powerful experiential examples or anecdotes that help to make contact with life as it is lived” (Van Manen, 2016, p. 353).

Moving on to the characteristics of the interviews themselves, almost all the studies reviewed (98%) explicitly reported having used in-depth interviews. According to Rutledge and Hogg (2020), an in-depth interview is a qualitative research technique used to conduct detailed interviews with a small number of participants. Researchers invest significant time with each participant using a conversational format with a discovery-oriented approach. For Moustakas (1994), the long interview is typically the method used in phenomenological investigations to collect data on the topic and question. Thus, the duration of interviews reported in the reviewed studies aligns with in-depth interview practices, typically lasting 30–240 min, with most falling between 30 and 60 min. An exception has been observed in which an interview lasted only 7 minutes. This duration does not meet the standards for in-depth interviews and raises concerns about the ability to collect rich, detailed experiential material (Van Manen, 2016).

Concerning openness, a key tension in phenomenological research is balancing structured questions with allowing participants to guide the dialogue (Thomas, 2021). Our review reflects this tension, with 55% of studies employing semi-structured interviews and 32% using unstructured approaches, which points to a prevalence of semi-structured interviews that raises a critical methodological question regarding their alignment with fundamental phenomenological principles. Semi-structured interviews may provide a sense of control to the researcher but narrows their possibilities for gaining access to the phenomenological testimonies of participants guided by the epoché, i.e., bracketing pre-understandings or theories.

Scholars such as Van Manen (1990, 2016) and Dahlberg et al. (2008) caution that standardising the interview process through fixed questions risks constraining this openness and may obscure the authentic expression of experience. Giorgi (2009) further warns that imposing a priori structures can distort, rather than illuminate, the meaning of lived experience. In dialogical phenomenology, as inspired by Jaspers, Buber, and Gadamer, and developed by Halling et al. (2006), the interview is viewed as an unfolding intersubjective encounter that requires an open, reflective, and embodied engagement from the interviewer. This dialogical stance is crucial for meanings to emerge relationally, rather than being extracted through a predetermined script (Finlay, 2009; Moustakas, 1994; Van Manen, 1990, 2016). Consequently, phenomenological interviews should ideally embrace minimally structured or dialogical approaches. Although researchers may use interview guides, these should serve as prompts to enhance meaning. Researchers must strive to remain attuned to participants’ experiences, prioritising presence, openness, and a readiness to be transformed by interaction. Phenomenological research interviews should then be dialogic but not erratic, research goals driven but not interrogative, and interactively focused on participants’ lived experience of the phenomenon.

Nevertheless, researchers may need to provide some direction for a long, in-depth dialogical interview, particularly for inexperienced interviewers or for pragmatic matters such as the process of obtaining ethical approval, as it illustrates the extent to which researchers engage deeply with participants’ lived experiences during the interview process. Hence, some written prompts, clearly based on research goals, can serve as useful guides and may often be enough to solve the tension of balancing structured questions with the flexibility to allow participants to guide the dialogue.

As to the number of interviews per participant, our review found that 28% of studies explicitly stated conducting more than one interview with the same participant. Such procedure can lead to richer analysis and a deeper understanding of participants’ experiences over time (Giorgi, 2009). Likewise, it serves as a bias control strategy, helping to identify emerging patterns and prevent overemphasis on non-recurring aspects (Benner, 1994). However, this multi-interview approach does not appear to be the predominant perspective in most of the studies included in this scoping review, suggesting a potential area for future methodological consideration.

With respect to the means of communication of interview, our findings show that face-to-face interviews remain the most common approach for gathering descriptions of lived experience in phenomenological research. However, a notable trend is the increasing adoption of remote methods, with thirteen studies reporting interviews conducted online or via telephone. This change can largely be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent social distancing measures (Enoch et al., 2023). The implication here is that remote methods, including telephone and online interviews, are increasingly recognised for their ability to produce rich data while offering accessible and comfortable engagement for participants (Enoch et al., 2023; Hyde & Rouse, 2023).

Turning to the theoretical foundations guiding these studies, our review found a clear predominance of hermeneutic or interpretive phenomenology, which may indicate that researchers view phenomena as a continuing act of meaning possibility, opting to emphasising the attributed meanings within complex healthcare interactions and patient care (Vagle, 2018; Van Manen, 2016). However, a critical concern is that some studies exhibited a mix of phenomenological methods with other qualitative approaches, potentially diluting their philosophical integrity (Kahlke, 2014). Consequently, there are concerns about methodological rigour, as the theoretical foundations are not consistently aligned with the execution, namely with interviews, limiting the studies’ depth and validity (Thomas, 2021).

Further to this, we identified a significant gap in the explicit articulation of theoretical foundations specifically guiding the interview process, with 60% of the reviewed studies not explicitly referencing any theoretical framework for their interviews, indicating a disconnect between research design and data collection. As to the studies that did provide a theoretical basis for the interviews, we verified a significant reliance on broader qualitative approaches, such as those outlined by Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), suggesting that many researchers adopt general qualitative practices without fully integrating phenomenological principles (Giorgi, 2009). To this point, Englander (2012) states that students interested in conducting phenomenological research frequently carry out interviews that do not align with the principles of phenomenology. Without questioning the value of the insight provided by such general guides, these should remain as guides to qualitative interviewing (Englander, 2012). Interview procedures lacking clear phenomenological criteria may limit researchers’ ability to fully capture the participants’ lived experience, potentially compromising their findings (Dahlberg, 2006; Giorgi, 2009). Integrating texts by foundational phenomenologists such as Husserl, Heidegger or Merleau-Ponty would allow researchers to better align their interviewing techniques with the goals of phenomenology, enhancing both philosophical and methodological coherence (Vagle, 2018).

When appreciating the diversity of topics investigated, it became clear that the extensive range of possibilities delved into the lived experience of patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Thus, the subjectivity of the lived human world of healthcare and health-illness phenomena brings forth the recognition that stakeholders must be mindful of the pathos and meanings entailed by those who lived through it. Phenomenology uncovers emotional nuances that standard clinical models may overlook, deepening our understanding of human experience in these contexts (Rodriguez & Smith, 2018; Van Manen, 1990, 2016). As such, the possibility of producing action-sensitive knowledge takes root through the attentive practice of thoughtfulness embedded in phenomenology (Van Manen, 1990).

It is now important to consider how the included studies addressed interviewer subjectivity. We found that reflective practices were integral to managing interviewer subjectivity, ensuring the rigour and credibility of the research process. Several procedures are described to ensure transparency and awareness of the researcher’s influence on data, displaying a ‘bridling’ approach to restrain preconceived ideas and biases (Dahlberg et al., 2008). The use of field notes or reflexive commentaries/diaries, in which interviewers documented their non-verbal experiences, observations of participants, and their own emotional states, as well as supervision sessions with other researchers, was included as part of the dataset, contributing to a holistic understanding of the phenomenon (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018; Van Manen, 1997). Furthermore, the need to maintain a neutral stance throughout the interviews, avoiding undue influence or subjective acceptance of participants’ perspectives was also part of the needed openness and a naïve approach to the phenomenon, allowing the lived meanings to emerge authentically. As Zahavi and Martiny (2019) emphasise, adopting a phenomenological attitude involves focusing on how phenomena appear and matter to us, thereby ensuring a reflective and credible research process. To this end, interpersonal competencies of researchers emerged as inextricably linked to the ability to bestow a dialogical nature to the interview (Alirezaei & Latifnejad Roudsari, 2020). Hence, the adoption of mindfulness practices and active listening techniques creates an open and supportive environment for participants, enabling richer data collection.

Another strategy described in 22 studies to address concerns about interviewer subjectivity is participant validation, which implies a greater involvement of the participant in inspecting the credibility of transcripts or even data analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Smith et al., 2009). In phenomenology, the aim is not to verify participants’ descriptions as factual accounts, but rather to illuminate the essence of lived experience as lived through and subsequently interpreted by the researcher (Van Manen, 2016). As such, member checking, particularly practices that ask participants to confirm transcripts or interpretations, may be conceptually misaligned with phenomenological epistemology (Finlay, 2009; Giorgi, 2009). To that end, Finlay (2021) argues that phenomenological validity is better supported by being critically mindful of the methodological, epistemological, and political issues at play, rather than relying on external verification. She proposes the “4 Rs” to approach thematic analysis - Rigour, Relevance, Resonance, and Reflexivity - which align more closely with the philosophical foundations of phenomenological inquiry. Besides, practices such as bridling (Dahlberg et al., 2008) help researchers manage their pre-understandings without suppressing them, maintaining openness to the phenomenon as it reveals itself. These approaches underscore the importance of the researcher’s reflective engagement and staying close to the lived world, rather than distancing it through procedural validation.

Finally, some studies have employed triangulation by combining multiple information-gathering methods, such as interviews with observational methods (Bush & Bruni, 2008) or having multiple researchers analyse the data separately and then discuss any differences until they reach an agreement (Granero-Molina et al., 2018). As it happens, phenomenological interviewing may not be sufficient when phenomena involve individuals who have experienced complex health-related issues or have difficulty verbalising or writing about their lived experiences, requiring triangulation with observational research (Klinke & Fernandez, 2023). Besides seeking trustworthiness (Granero-Molina et al., 2018), triangulation emerges as a way to enhance the depth and breadth of qualitative research, providing a framework for data collection and analysis, introducing novelty and openness to change in phenomenological research. Notwithstanding, criticism of validation criteria via participant validation or triangulation of multiple methods echoes within phenomenology as the validity of a phenomenological study is directly linked to the resonance of the insights interpreted from the lived experience descriptions, rather than from predetermined validation procedures (Van Manen, 2016).

Guidance for Future Practice in Phenomenological Interviewing

Thus far, we have mapped and analysed the characteristics of the phenomenological interviews embedded in the 125 studies included in this review. Rather than just sharing our findings, we are able to establish a roadmap for successfully conducting phenomenological interviews. These insights can help others avoid common pitfalls and improve the authenticity of their work. Based on the findings from this scoping review, we propose a series of guiding principles for conducting interviews that align with the tenets of phenomenological inquiry. These principles are designed to assist future researchers in developing interview processes that genuinely capture the lived experience of individuals, free from external validation or preconceived notions.

Gadamer’s assertion that phenomenology’s method is that it has no fixed method (Gadamer, 2004) can be a source of both excessive concern and misguided decisions — particularly for researchers new to phenomenologically oriented studies — when preparing for phenomenological interviews. If there is one thing that this scoping shows, it is the diversity of choices about how to conduct the interview, some of which are debatable to the point of raising doubts about their ability to access the phenomena (in the phenomenological sense) that they propose to study.

In this sense, the Table 7 below aims to summarise, based on the consensus of authors and practices, some recommendations for conducting phenomenological interviews.

Table 7.

Guidance for Phenomenological Interviewing

Depth	In-depth interviews can explore participants’ lived experience comprehensively. Almost all the studies reviewed (98%) explicitly reported having used in-depth interviews.
Length	Length should be aligned with in-depth interview practices. This scoping review found interviews typically lasting 30 to 240 minutes. Mostly between 30 and 60 minutes. Embodied data collection methods—such as observation—can usefully complement shorter interviews (Klinke & Fernandez, 2023).
Openness	Van Manen (1990, 2016) and Dahlberg et al. (2008) caution that standardising the interview process through fixed questions risks constraining openness and may obscure the authentic expression of experience. Giorgi (2009) also warns that imposing a priori structures may distort rather than illuminate the meaning of lived experience. So, some minimally written prompts clearly based on research goals can serve as useful guidance when researchers look for a long in-depth dialogical interview.
Number of participants	The number of participants is influenced by the richness and variability of the descriptions provided (Van Manen, 1990, 2016). According to Giorgi’s (2009) a minimum of three participants is considered sufficient for a study. Dahlberg and colleagues (2008) propose beginning with approximately five interviews. In IPA, Smith and colleagues (2009) also advocate for small, homogeneous sample sizes. Colaizzi (1978) suggested 12 participants as an average number. This scoping review found the mode of 10 participants.
Number of interviews per participant	As 28% of the studies included in this scoping review reported, a single in-depth interview is commonly sufficient to meet the aims of phenomenological inquiry. When a second interview is conducted, it is typically intended to clarify ambiguities rather than to verify the initial account or enhance the study’s validity. Multiple interviews, however, can enrich the analysis and provide a deeper understanding of participants’ evolving experiences over time, serving as a strategy to mitigate researcher bias (Benner, 1994; Giorgi, 2009).
Interview mode	In most studies included in this review interviews were conducted face-to-face. However, thirteen studies reported that interviews were conducted online or via telephone. These methods, including telephone and online interviews, can produce rich data while offering an accessible and comfortable way for many participants to engage in the research process (Enoch et al., 2023; Hyde & Rouse, 2023). When face-to-face is not viable, remote interviews can be a choice. Online offers more flexibility to participants, is easy to record and can be AI assisted.
Theoretical foundations of the study research design	Phenomenological oriented research needs rigorous engagement with its philosophical foundations. Articulating the ways in which phenomenological principles are operationalized within the specific study is therefore of critical importance (Norlyk & Harder, 2010) and must be clearly stated. With a diverse range of other phenomenological approaches, the predominance of hermeneutic or interpretive phenomenology in this scoping highlights the significant role of these approaches in healthcare research.
Theoretical foundations of interviews	A solid theoretical framework supports methodological integrity, ensuring that each interaction during an interview reflects the goals of phenomenology and fosters consistency in the research process (Englander, 2012). Colaizzi’s descriptive phenomenological method (1978), Parse’s qualitative inquiry proposal (2001), IPA (Smith et al., 2009) and Van Manen (1990, 1997, 2016) are some of the authors that offer theoretical guidance for phenomenological interviews.
Participant selection	Participant selection should be based on purposive strategies that align with the research aim. In many studies included in this review, purposive sampling methods were used to select participants capable of offering rich experiential accounts (Irarrázaval, 2020). Depending on the research goal, maximum variation sampling (to explore the phenomenon’s diversity) or minimum variation sampling (to deeply explore shared experiences) may be appropriate (Dahlberg et al., 2008; Patton, 2002; Smith et al., 2009). Researchers should explicitly justify their sampling strategy based on the phenomenological aim of revealing the essence of the phenomenon across different or similar lifeworld expressions.
Interviewer subjectivity	Researcher’s subjectivity during phenomenological interviewing is recognised as both an asset and a potential source of bias. Reflective practices such as field notes, reflexive commentaries, research diaries, supervision with fellow researchers, the practice of ‘bridling’ (Dahlberg et al., 2008), and a sustained engagement with the lifeworld existentials (Van Manen, 1997) foster openness and a naïve stance toward the phenomenon, enabling lived meanings to emerge authentically. Finlay’s (2009, 2021) “4 Rs” of qualitative rigour — rigour, resonance, reflexivity and relevance — should guide all the interview process.

Limitations

This scoping review, while comprehensive in its aim to map the use of interviews in phenomenological healthcare research, has several limitations that must be acknowledged. The large number of included articles, with data extracted from 125 studies, presented challenges in maintaining a clear and concise analysis. The extensive volume of data made it difficult to offer a thorough interpretation of all aspects of the research. Furthermore, the wide range of research questions—covering various dimensions of phenomenological interviews—may have limited the depth of exploration in specific areas due to the diversity of topics addressed.

The review’s inclusion criteria were intentionally broad to ensure a comprehensive synthesis; however, this flexibility resulted in the inclusion of studies with varying degrees of adherence to phenomenological principles. Consequently, some included studies displayed questionable methodological rigour or lacked alignment with phenomenological approaches. Another limitation was the restriction to studies published in English, Portuguese, French, and Spanish. This choice, while practical, excluded potentially relevant studies in other languages.

Furthermore, the review included only studies published up to December 31st, 2022, which excluded more recent studies from 2023 and 2024, potentially affecting the relevance and currency of the findings. The exclusion of grey literature was another limitation, as this decision was made to manage the large volume of articles but may have resulted in the omission of innovative or unpublished studies that could provide valuable insights.

An additional limitation relates to the focus on studies that explicitly described the use of interviews as a method. This may have led to the omission of some dialogical phenomenological studies, which - although grounded in rich phenomenological traditions - may describe their methods using different terminology such as “dialogical engagement” or “intersubjective conversation” rather than “interview.” These approaches, particularly common in hermeneutic and existential traditions, align strongly with phenomenological aims but may have fallen outside our search scope. These limitations collectively underscore the need for future reviews to adopt stricter inclusion criteria, expand language coverage, and include recent and grey literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. Also, future reviews could specifically focus on dialogical phenomenology to more thoroughly capture this body of work and its contributions to healthcare research.

Conclusions

This scoping review offers a comprehensive overview of the use and nature of phenomenological interviews in healthcare research, emphasizing the potential to capture a wide range of healthcare phenomena, demonstrating both adaptability and strength. Despite their importance, significant challenges persist in aligning theoretical underpinnings with methodological execution, revealing the tension between philosophical intent and empirical execution.

The review emphasizes hermeneutic or interpretive phenomenology in healthcare contexts but reveals a significant gap in interview theoretical or philosophical framework design, with over half of the studies lacking explicit theoretical grounding. Among those that did, many relied on broader qualitative approaches rather than on phenomenological traditions, suggesting inadequate adaptation to phenomenological principles, raising concerns about rigour. Furthermore, several studies included large participant samples, which we argue compromises the depth of phenomenological analysis. While such studies were included due to their use of interviews labelled as phenomenological, their alignment with core phenomenological tenets remains questionable.

Another key issue is the dominance of semi-structured interviews, which may limit the openness needed for phenomenological inquiry. This review advocates for dialogical and minimally structured interviews that foster relational co-construction of meaning to better reveal lived experience.

We also addressed the conceptual misalignment between traditional validation techniques, such as member checking, and phenomenological epistemology. Instead of aiming for verification from participants, phenomenological research should adopt criteria that emphasize openness, reflexivity, and sensitivity to the meanings that arise during the interaction between the researcher and participants.

Based on our findings, we’ve created a roadmap for phenomenological interviewing. This guide combines key principles and practical tips to help researchers conduct philosophically sound and methodologically robust interviews that reflect the phenomenon being studied.

Ultimately, this review points out the diversity within healthcare research and the use of phenomenological interviews, indicating that some papers mention phenomenological interviewing but may not fully adhere to its fundamental principles. To strengthen phenomenological interviewing in healthcare research, we recommend clearer methods, better theoretical connections, and the use of approaches that are sensitive to people’s experiences. Future research should focus on consistency by more clearly incorporating phenomenological principles when designing and conducting phenomenological interviews. By tackling these issues, researchers can improve their ability to provide meaningful insights into human experience in healthcare.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Characteristics of the Phenomenological Interview in Healthcare Research: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance

Supplemental Material for Characteristics of the Phenomenological Interview in Healthcare Research: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance by Joaquim Oliveira Lopes, Florinda Galinha de Sá, Maria Teresa Magão, Joaquim Paulo Oliveira, Patrícia Silva Pereira, Marianne Elizabethe Klinke, and Margarida Tomás in International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the Nursing Research,Innovation and Development Centre of Lisbon (CIDNUR) - Nursing School of Lisbon.

Joaquim Oliveira Lopes

Florinda Galinha de Sá

Maria Teresa Magão

Joaquim Paulo Oliveira

Patrícia Silva-Pereira

Marianne Elisabeth Klinke

Margarida Tomás

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval was unnecessary due to the nature of the study,which was a literature review.

Author Contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to either conception and design or analysis and interpretation of data,drafting or revision of the article,and have seen and given final approval of the submission.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: The study was funded by the Nursing Research,Innovation and Development Centre of Lisbon (CIDNUR) - Nursing School of Lisbon.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

All supplemental material for this article is available online and duly cited during the paper. *

Other Identifying Information

To preserve anonymity,we declare in the article in the section – Methods - “The review protocol has been registered and is available on an online platform,ensuring full transparency in our process.” If the article is accepted,we will change the text to - “The review protocol has been registered and is available on

,ensuring full transparency in our process.”

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adib-Hajbaghery

Rezaei-Gazki

Mazhari-Azad

Raddadi

(2021). The history of nursing research methodology in Iran: A mixed methods study. Advances in Nursing and Midwifery, 30(2), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.22037/jnm.v30i2.31465

Ahn

Miller

M. M. I.

Wang

Laszloffy

(2014). “I didn’t understand their system, and I didn’t know what to do”: Migrant parents’ experiences of mandated therapy for their children. Contemporary Family Therapy, 36(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-013-9291-1

Alhazmi

A. A.

Kaufmann

(2022). Phenomenological qualitative methods applied to the analysis of cross-cultural experience in novel educational social contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(785134). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.785134

Alirezaei

Latifnejad Roudsari

(2020). Reflections upon the conduct of phenomenological interviews. Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, 8(1), 1986–1987. https://doi.org/10.22038/jmrh.2020.14400

Allen

Benner

Diekelmann

(1986). Three paradigms for nursing research: Methodological implications. In Chinn

(Ed.), Nursing research methodology: Issues and implementation (pp. 23–28). Aspen Publishers.

Allen-Collinson

(2009). Sporting embodiment: Sports studies and the (continuing) promise of phenomenology, qualitative research in sport & exercise. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 1(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/19398440903192340

Anthony

K. H.

(2008). Helping partnerships that facilitate recovery from severe mental illness. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 46(7), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20080701-01

Arghavanian

F. E.

Heydari

Bahmani

M. N. D.

Roudsari

R. L.

(2020). An ethno-phenomenological study of pregnant women’s experiences regarding household roles. International Journal of Community Based Nursing and Midwifery, 8(4), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.30476/ijcbnm.2020.84685.1228

Benner

(1994). Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring, and ethics in health and illness. Sage Publications.

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

11.

Brink

(1996). Fundamentals of research methodology for health care professionals. Juta & Company. https://books.google.pt/books?id=qXrgAAAAMAAJ

12.

Brinkmann

Kvale

(2014). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

13.

Brinkmann

Kvale

(2018). Doing interviews. Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716665

14.

Burns

N. A.

Grove

S. K.

(2005). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique, and utilization. Elsevier/Saunders. https://books.google.pt/books?id=olZqAAAAMAAJ

15.

Bush

Bruni

(2008). Spiritual care as a dimension of holistic care: A relational interpretation. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 14(11), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.12968/IJPN.2008.14.11.31758

16.

Callister

L. C.

(1995). Beliefs and perceptions of childbearing women choosing different primary health care providers. Clinical Nursing Research, 4(2), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/105477389500400204

17.

Colaizzi

P. F.

(1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In Valle

R. S.

King

(Eds.), Existential-phenomenological alternatives for psychology. Oxford University Press.

18.

Cresswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

19.

Dadkhahtehrani

Eskandari

Khalajinia

Ahmari-Tehran

(2018). Experiences of fathers with inpatient premature neonates: Phenomenological interpretative analysis. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 23(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJNMR.IJNMR_21_17

20.

Dahlberg

(2006). The essence of essences – the search for meaning structures in phenomenological analysis of lifeworld phenomena. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 1(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482620500478405

21.

Dahlberg

Nystrom

Drew

(2008). Reflective lifeworld research (2nd ed.). Studentlitteratur AB.

22.

Diekelmann

Ironside

P. M.

(1998). Preserving writing in doctoral education: Exploring the concernful practices of schooling learning teaching. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(6), 1347–1355. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00819.x

23.

Diekelmann

N. L.

Allen

Tanner

C. A.

(1989). The NLN criteria for appraisal of baccalaureate programs: A critical hermeneutic analysis. National League for Nursing. https://books.google.pt/books?id=BgRtAAAAMAAJ

24.

Dowling

(2007). From Husserl to van Manen. A review of different phenomenological approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.11.026

25.

Liu

Chen

Wang

X. Q.

Fang

Chen

Zhang

Z. J.

Liu

Yang

B. X.

Guo

Luo

(2022). When health care workers became patients with COVID-19: A qualitative study. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 28(1), Article e13034. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJN.13034

26.

Englander

(2012). The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916212X632943

27.

Enoch

Subramanian

Willig

(2023). “If I don’t like it, I’ll just pop the phone down!”: Reflecting on participant and researcher experiences of telephone interviews conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, 4(100351). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2023.100351

28.

Fielden

J. M.

(2003). Grief as a transformative experience: Weaving through different lifeworlds after a loved one has completed suicide. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 12(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-0979.2003.00271.x

29.

Finlay

(2009). Debating phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology & Practice, 3(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.29173/pandpr19818. https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/pandpr/index.php/pandpr/article/view/19818/15336

30.

Finlay

(2021). Thematic analysis: The “good”, the “bad” and the “ugly”. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, 11, 103–116. https://doi.org/10.24377/EJQRP.article3062

31.

Flyvbjerg

(2011). Case study. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 301–316). Sage. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2278194

32.

Gadamer

H.-G.

(2004). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans., 2nd rev. ed.). Continuum. (Original work published 1960).

33.

Gee

Loewenthal

(2011). Working with despair: A phenomenological investigation. Psychology and psychotherapy, 86(2), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.2011.02053.x

34.

Giorgi

(1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Duquesne University Press.

35.

Giorgi

(2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Duquesne University Press.

36.

Giorgi

(2003). Phenomenology. In Smith

J. A.

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 20–25). Sage.

37.

Granero-Molina

Matarín Jiménez

T. M.

Ramos Rodríguez

Hernández-Padilla

J. M.

Castro-Sánchez

A. M.

Fernández-Sola

(2018). Social support for female sexual dysfunction in fibromyalgia. Clinical Nursing Research, 27(3), 296–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773816676941

38.

Guerrero-Castañeda

R. F.

Menezes

T. M. de O.

Ojeda-Vargas

M. G.

(2017). Características de la entrevista fenomenológica en investigación en enfermería. Revista Gaucha de Enfermagem, 38(2), Article e67458. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2017.02.67458

39.

Halling

Leifer

Rowe

J. O.

(2006). Emergence of the dialogical approach: Forgiving another. In Fischer

C. T.

(Ed.), Qualitative research methods for psychologists: Introduction to empirical studies (pp. 247–277). Elsevier Inc.

40.

Hamid

Jahangir

M. S.

Khan

T. A.

(2021). Lived experiences of women suffering from breast cancer in Kashmir: A phenomenological study. Health Promotion International, 36(3), 680–692. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daaa091

41.

Høffding

Martiny

(2016). Framing a phenomenological interview: What, why and how. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 539–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-015-9433-z

42.

Høffding

Martiny

Roepstorff

(2022). Can we trust the phenomenological interview? Metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological objections. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 21(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-021-09744-z

43.

Hyde

Rouse

(2023). What is it like to experience the other in an online interview? Using phenomenology to explore the online encounter of the other. Qualitative Inquiry, 29(7), 874–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004221144071

44.

Irarrázaval

(2020). A phenomenological paradigm for empirical research in psychiatry and psychology: Open questions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1399). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01399

45.

Kahlke

R. M.

(2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300119

46.

Klinke

M. E.

Fernandez

A. V.

(2023). Taking phenomenology beyond the first-person perspective: Conceptual grounding in the collection and analysis of observational evidence. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 22(1), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-021-09796-1

47.

Koch

(1995). Interpretive approaches in nursing research: The influence of Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21(5), 827–836. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21050827.x

48.

Koch

(1996). Implementation of a hermeneutic inquiry in nursing: Philosophy, rigour and representation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(1), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.17224.x

49.

Kvale

(2007). Doing interviews. Sage Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963

50.

Kvale

Brinkmann

(2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

51.

Limberg

Schuermann

Fox

Robinson

E. H. M.

(2018). A phenomenological investigation of altruism from the perspective of counsellors in Scotland. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 18(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12150

52.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

53.

Mccurry

A. H.

Thomas

S. P.

(2002). Spouses’ experiences in heart transplantation. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 24(2), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/019394590202400207

54.

Mclachlan

King

Wenger

Dornan

(2012). Phenomenological analysis of patient experiences of medical student teaching encounters. Medical Education, 46(10), 963–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04332.x

55.

Mohamadi Asl

Khademi

Mohammadi

(2022). The influential factors in humanistic critical care nursing. Nursing ethics, 29(3), 608–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330211043274

56.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications. https://books.google.je/books?id=Fy3iBAAAQBAJ

57.

Navab

Negarandeh

Peyrovi

Navab

(2013). Stigma among Iranian family caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s disease: A hermeneutic study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15(2), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12017

58.

Nelms

(2015). Phenomenological philosophy and research. In De Chesnay

(Ed.), Nursing research using phenomenology: Qualitative designs and methods in nursing (pp. 1–24). Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

59.

Nelson

Hubbard Murdoch

Norman

(2021). The role of uncertainty in the experiences of nurses during the Covid-19 pandemic: A phenomenological study. The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research = Revue Canadienne de Recherche En Sciences Infirmieres, 53(2), 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0844562121992202

60.

Norlyk

Harder

(2010). What makes a phenomenological study phenomenological? An analysis of peer-reviewed empirical nursing studies. Qualitative Health Research, 20(3), 420–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309357435

61.

Norlyk

Martinsen

Dreyer

Haahr

(2023). Why phenomenology came into nursing: The legitimacy and usefulness of phenomenology in theory building in the discipline of nursing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231210433

62.

Parse

R. R.

(1998). The human becoming School of thought: A perspective for nurses and other health professionals. Sage Publications.

63.

Parse

R. R.

(2001). Qualitative inquiry: The path of sciencing. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

64.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications. https://books.google.pt/books?id=FjBw2oi8El4C

65.

Peters

M. D.

Godfrey

McInerney

Munn

Tricco

A. C.

Khalil

(2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In Aromataris E, Munn Z (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis (pp. 407–452). JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/jbimes-20-12

66.

Picton

C. J.

Moxham

Patterson

(2017). The use of phenomenology in mental health nursing research. Nurse Researcher, 25(3), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2017.e1513

67.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

(2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. https://books.google.pt/books?id=5g6VttYWnjUC

68.

Polkinghorne

(1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. State University of New York Press.

69.

Ricoeur

(1973). The hermeneutical function of distanciation. Philosophy Today, 17(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtoday197317233

70.

Rodriguez

Smith

(2018). Phenomenology as a healthcare research method. Evidence-Based Nursing, 21(4), 118–198. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102990

71.

Russell

Moss

Miller

(2010). Appalling and appealing: A qualitative study of the character of men’s self-harm. Psychology and psychotherapy, 83(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1348/147608309X466826

72.

Rutledge

P. B.

Hogg

J. L. C.

(2020). In‐depth interviews. In Van den Bulck, J. (Ed.-in-Chief), D. R. Ewoldsen, M.-L. Mares, & E. Scharrer (Associate Eds.) (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media psychology (pp. 1–7). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0019

73.

Schutz

(1970). Alfred Schutz on phenomenology and social relations. University of Chicago Press.

74.

Seidman

(2019). Interviewing as qualitative research (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.

75.

Sloan

Bowe

(2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Quality and Quantity, 48(3), 1291–1303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9835-3

76.

Smith

Osborn

(2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Breakwell

G.M.

(Ed.), Doing Social Psychology Research (pp. 229–254). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470776278.ch10

77.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage Publications.

78.

Taylor

M. C.

(2005). Interviewing. In Holloway

(Ed.), Qualitative research in healthcare (pp. 39–55). Open University Press.

79.

Thelwall

Nevill

(2021). Is research with qualitative data more prevalent and impactful now? Interviews, case studies, focus groups and ethnographies. Library & Information Science Research, 43(2), 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101094

80.

Thomas

S. P.

(2021). Resolving tensions in phenomenological research interviewing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(1), 484–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14597

81.

Toh

W. L.

Thomas

Hollander

Rossell

S. L.

(2020). On the phenomenology of auditory verbal hallucinations in affective and non-affective psychosis. Psychiatry Research, 290(113147). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113147

82.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D. J.

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

E. A.

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

M. G.

Garritty

Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

83.

Vagle

M. D.

(2018). Crafting phenomenological research (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315173474

84.

Van Kaam

A. L. V.

(1966). Existential foundations of psychology. Duquesne University Press.

85.

Van Manen

(1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. State University of New York Press.

86.

Van Manen

(1997). Researching lived experience, second edition: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Left Coast Press. https://books.google.pt/books?id=MdQkswEACAAJ

87.

Van Manen

(2016). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge.

88.

Zahavi

Martiny

K. M. M.

(2019). Phenomenology in nursing studies: New perspectives. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 93, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.01.014

89.

Zahavi

Rochat

(2015). Empathy ≠ sharing: Perspectives from phenomenology and developmental psychology. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONCOG.2015.05.008

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

4.74 MB