The Value of Listening: Why Qualitative Data Matters in Global Health
When we talk about research or evaluation in global health, numbers tend to take priority. We often ask: How many people were reached? How much did infection rates drop? What percentage of patients completed treatment? These questions are very vital, but they only tell part of the story. Behind every statistic lies a person, a lived experience, and a context that numbers alone cannot capture. This is where qualitative data becomes not just valuable, but essential.
My public health education consisted of various classes including epidemiology and biostatistics. Although these classes were essential to my MPH degree, they are heavily focused on quantitative data. Looking back, not a single class or lesson throughout my program involved qualitative research. Once I started working in research, I gained a lot more experience in qualitative methodologies and truly understood how vital the data can be. A survey could tell me how many patients adhered to treatment, but not what motivated them to stay in care or why others dropped out. The more time I spent engaging with participants and healthcare workers in the community, the more I realized that numbers could not explain why interventions succeed in one setting but fail in another. The real insights often came from the conversations and listening to people’s stories, frustrations, and hopes.
Qualitative research is, at its core, about understanding the human side of health. It helps us uncover beliefs, barriers, and facilitators that shape how individuals and communities interact with health systems. Through interviews and focus groups, we begin to see the complexity of lived realities and how culture, trust, gender norms, or stigma influence health behaviors. These are not abstract variables but are the determinants of whether an intervention will work, be adapted, or quietly fade away once external support ends.
In one project, I spent weeks reading through transcripts of qualitative interviews with people living with HIV. As I read through their stories, important insights emerged revealing how stigma shaped decisions around seeking care, adhering to treatment, and engaging with the health system. Through these narratives, we began to understand not only why some individuals opposed clinic-based treatment but also the deeper barriers that could limit the success of the current intervention. These insights would have been invisible in quantitative data alone.
Yet, funders and policymakers still tend to prioritize numbers, dashboards, and “evidence-based” outcomes defined by metrics. But what counts as evidence should not be limited to what can be quantified. A thematic analysis that captures the voices of patients and providers can be just as powerful as a dataset. It can explain not just what is happening, but why and that understanding is what leads to better program design, stronger community engagement, and lasting impact.
Qualitative insights are also key to accountability. When communities have a voice in how research is conducted and interventions are designed, the process itself becomes more equitable. Listening is a form of respect, and it shifts power away from experts and toward those whose lives are most affected. By integrating community perspectives into research and decision-making, we move closer to true co-creation in global health.
So, the next time we evaluate a project’s success, we should ask not only how many lives were reached, but whose stories were heard. Impact is not only measured in numbers but is reflected in the voices of the community.
