scholarly journals Focus Group Interviews in Child, Youth, and Parent Research: An Integrative Literature Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 160940691988727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin Adler ◽  
Sanna Salanterä ◽  
Maya Zumstein-Shaha
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Research Focus ◽  
Child Research ◽  
Adult Participants ◽  
Group Interviews

Focus groups are becoming increasingly popular in research, especially in parent and child research. Focus group interviews allow participants to tell their own stories, express their opinions, and even draw pictures without having to adhere to a strict sequence of questions. This method is very suitable for collecting data from children, youths, and parents. However, focus group interviews must be carefully planned and conducted. The literature on focus group interviews with adult participants is extensive, but there are no current summaries of the most important issues to consider when conducting focus group interviews with children, youths, or parents. This article outlines the use of focus groups in child, youth, and parent research and the important factors to be considered when planning, conducting, and analyzing focus groups with children, youths, or parents.

scholarly journals Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamarinde L. Haven ◽  
Joeri K. Tijdink ◽  
H. Roeline Pasman ◽  
Guy Widdershoven ◽  
Gerben ter Riet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Aggregate Level ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Disciplinary Field ◽  
Group Interviews

Abstract Background There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted ‘insufficient supervision’. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

scholarly journals EFFECTS OF AN INTERGENERATIONAL EXERCISE BUDDY PROGRAM ON PARTICIPANTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S871-S872
Author(s):  
Eun hae Kim ◽  
Kyong Hee Chee ◽  
Clay DeStefano ◽  
Anna Broome
Keyword(s):  
Young Adult ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Older Adult ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Adult Participants ◽  
Group Interviews ◽  
Exercise Classes

Abstract Structured social support may enhance the benefits of an exercise class for participants. This study examined the effects of an intergenerational exercise buddy program on participant well-being. A convenience sampling was used to recruit participants from Central Texas (N = 51): 34 were community-dwelling adults aged 65 and above, and 17 were university students aged 18-25 years. The study used a pretest-posttest, quasi-experimental design and focus group interviews. Randomly selected 18 older-adult participants were paired with young-adult participants as an exercise buddy for each other to attend 8 weekly Tai Chi or Chair Yoga classes at a community center. Meanwhile, 16 older-adult participants formed a control group attending different exercise classes without young-adult buddies. The survey results show that, compared to the control group, the intervention group (n = 35) had significantly greater satisfaction with life (p < .09 ) and a more positive attitude towards aging (p < .01) after attending exercise classes with their buddies. In focus group interviews, the participants most frequently mentioned that commitment to their buddies as a key factor for class attendance. The participants typically perceived that their buddies were pleasant and did not judge or treat them based on their age. They stressed the positive effects of building relationships with all involved in the program, including the exercise instructors. Meanwhile, control-group participants wished that they, too, had buddies. Although the study should be replicated with a larger sample, its findings suggest that an intergenerational exercise program offers added benefits for participants.

scholarly journals Aspectos quantitativos e qualitativos sobre as barreiras para o uso de bicicleta em adultos de Curitiba, Brasil

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilson Kienteka ◽  
Edina Maria de Camargo ◽  
Rogério César Fermino ◽  
Rodrigo Siqueira Reis
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Physical Environment ◽  
Heavy Traffic ◽  
Household Survey ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Group Interviews ◽  
Bad Weather

The implementation of bicycling promotion programs should consider the barriers to this behavior. The aim of this study was to quantitative and qualitatively characterize barriers to leisure and commuting bicycle use for adults from Curitiba, Brazil. The first phase comprised a cross-sectional household survey involving 677 adults (53% women). Of these, 16.7% and 11.2% reported leisure and commuting bicycle use, respectively. Then, 24 bicycle users (50% women) were recruited and participated in focus group interviews. The content of answers was analyzed with a conceptual matrix. The most reported barriers to leisure bicycle use were “bad weather” (65.5%), “heavy traffic” (53.1%), “lack of bike lanes” (48.7%) and “lack of security “(44.2%). In commuting, the most reported were “bad weather” (69.7%), “heavy traffic”, “lack of safety” and “fear of accidents” (51.3% each). The comparative analysis between barriers reported in the survey and those reported in the focus groups showed a combination of seven of the 11 barriers reported in questionnaires. Some of the barriers identified in the survey were not mentioned in the focus groups (“poor street quality”, “pollution”, “not having a bicycle”, “lack of parking”, “distance to destinations”). The main barriers to bicycle use are related to physical environment and safety aspects, regardless of approach adopted and purpose of use.

scholarly journals Subjective Perception of Individuals with Physical Disabilities Regarding Exercise Equipment Use

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 004695802110104
Author(s):  
Song Yi Lee ◽  
Jung Ah Lee ◽  
Hee Jung Chung ◽  
Hyun-Jin Kim ◽  
Yu Cheon Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Q Methodology ◽  
Physical Disabilities ◽  
Subjective Perception ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Effective Utilization ◽  
Group Interviews ◽  
Exercise Equipment ◽  
Rehabilitation Exercise

Rehabilitation exercise is effective for improving the health of persons with physical disabilities. However, there are limited studies on their perception of exercise equipment use. The purpose of this study was to investigate the subjectivity to understand the types of perceptions of individuals with physical disabilities regarding the use of exercise equipment in South Korea. This study used Q-methodology. A literature review and focus group interviews with individuals with physical disabilities were conducted to construct Q-Population. Q-statements were selected from the Q-population, after which Q-sorting was executed by P-sample. The results indicated 4 perception types: (1) “Independent user,” (2) “Practical user,” (3) “Motivational user,” and (4) “Convenience user.” Recommendations were provided for developing exercise equipment for use by individuals with physical disabilities. This study revealed 4 perception categories and the findings have strong potential to contribute to the development of proper services and the effective utilization of exercise equipment for individuals with physical disabilities.

scholarly journals A Framework for the Evaluation of Healthcare Data’s Value from the Perspective of Open Data

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Xu ◽  
Danmai Wu ◽  
Shu Wang ◽  
Mingyue Wei ◽  
Guangjun Yu
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Delphi Method ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Healthcare Data ◽  
Solid Foundation ◽  
Group Interviews

Abstract Background: This study is aimed at developing a framework for the evaluation of healthcare data’s value, so as to provide a tool for data managers in making decisions on data openness.Methods: In this study, the Delphi method was adopted. Firstly, a rudimentary framework was constructed following a literature review and focus group interviews, and an inquiry letter was designed. After handing out the inquiry letters to experts in related areas, the framework was modified according to the feedbacks. This process was repeated until a consensus was reached.Results: For this inquiry 15 experts were invited; whose levels of activeness and authority were relatively high. This research produced a framework for the evaluation of healthcare data with 2 primary criteria, 7 secondary criteria and 21 tertiary criteria, after two rounds in Delphi method.Conclusion: The framework established in this research lays a solid foundation for the identifying and evaluation of healthcare data’s value, and is expected to drive the process of opening of valuable healthcare data.

scholarly journals Implementation of a Complex Health Services Intervention in Long-term Care Homes: A Process Evaluation Using Focus Groups

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rieka von der Warth ◽  
Vanessa Kaiser ◽  
Christina Reese ◽  
Boris A. Brühmann ◽  
Erik Farin-Glattacker
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Total N ◽  
Group Interviews

Abstract BackgroundWith increasing numbers of the elderly living in nursing homes in Germany, the need for on-site primary care increases. A lack of primary care in nursing homes can lead to unnecessary hospitalization, higher mortality, and morbidity in the elderly. Therefore, project CoCare (“coordinated medical care”) implements a complex health intervention in nursing homes, using among others regular medical rounds, a shared patient medical record and medication checks, aiming to improve the coordination of medical care. This study reports the results of a process evaluation assessing the perceived acceptance and barriers of the project by stakeholders.MethodsFocus group interviews were held between the fall of 2018 and the fall of 2019 with nursing staff, general practitioners and medical assistants working in or consulting a participating nursing home. A half-structured modular guideline was used to ask participants about their opinion on different aspects of CoCare. Focus groups were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. ResultsIn total, N=11 focus group interviews with N= 74 participants were conducted. Ten main themes with seven subthemes were identified, encompassing all aspects of CoCare. The overall acceptance of the project was good. Participants elected to talk most often about the project modules “communication and collaboration” and “medical rounds”, with participants concluding CoCare had prevented unnecessary hospitalizations. Main barriers were understaffing and complexity of the program.ConclusionImplementation of CoCare in nursing homes is complex and holds some barriers. However, the overall acceptance was good and first positive results were reported by participants. Furthermore, the project provides a good structure to overcome potential barriers.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00012703)

scholarly journals Implementation of a complex health services intervention in long-term care homes: a process evaluation using focus groups

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rieka von der Warth ◽  
Vanessa Kaiser ◽  
Christina Reese ◽  
Boris A. Brühmann ◽  
Erik Farin-Glattacker
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Total N ◽  
Group Interviews

Abstract BackgroundWith rising numbers of the elderly living in nursing homes in Germany, the need for on-site primary care is on the increase. A lack of primary care in nursing homes can lead to unnecessary hospitalization, higher mortality, and morbidity in the elderly. The CoCare (“coordinated medical care”) project has therefore implemented a complex health intervention in nursing homes, using inter alia, regular medical rounds, a shared patient medical record and medication checks, aiming to improve the coordination of medical care. This study reports upon the results of the process evaluation assessing the perceived acceptance and barriers of the project by stakeholders.MethodsFocus group interviews were held between the fall of 2018 and the fall of 2019 with nurses, general practitioners and GP´s assistants working in or consulting a participating nursing home. A semi-structured modular guideline was used to ask participants about their opinion on different aspects of CoCare. Focus groups were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. ResultsIn total, N=11 focus group interviews with N=74 participants were conducted. Eleven main themes with four subthemes were identified, encompassing all aspects of CoCare. The overall acceptance of the project was good. Participants elected to speak most often about the project modules “communication and collaboration” and “medical rounds”, with participants concluding that CoCare had prevented unnecessary hospitalizations. The main barriers were understaffing and complexity of the program.ConclusionImplementation of CoCare in nursing homes is complex and presents some barriers. However, the overall acceptance was good and participants reported the first positive results. Furthermore, the project provides a good structure to overcome potential barriers. However, some adaptions to the implementation process should be made.

Barriers to Achieving the Benefits of BIM

2019 ◽  
pp. 814-832
Author(s):  
Heikki Halttula ◽  
Harri Haapasalo ◽  
Maila Herva
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Information Flow ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Building Information Modelling ◽  
Information Modelling ◽  
Building Information ◽  
Practical Guidelines ◽  
Group Interviews

The purpose of this paper is to study the benefits of building information modelling (BIM) and determine the barriers to achieving these benefits. The use of BIM is not yet at a level where known benefits can be realised. This study consists of a literature review of the benefits of BIM and an empirical review, where focus group interviews were used to discover barriers. The major benefits of BIM include cost savings, better information flow, shorter project timelines and better quality. The greatest barrier is the lack of practical guidelines for BIM implementation in projects. Successful BIM implementation requires technology, people and processes to be in proper shape. Earlier studies identify the theoretical requirements of BIM implementation, but practical solutions are still not at an adequate level.

Service-learning from the views of university teachers: a qualitative study based on focus groups

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T.L. Shek ◽  
Stephen C.F. Chan
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Service Learning ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Undergraduate Curriculum ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
University Teachers ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Group Interviews

Abstract Under the New Undergraduate Curriculum at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU), students are required to take a 3-credit subject to fulfill service-learning requirements. To understand the views of teachers regarding service-learning, five focus group interviews (n=33) are conducted to examine the perceived characteristics and myths of service-learning as well as colleagues’ views on the policy at PolyU. Results showed that most informants are aware of service-learning and have seen its benefits to both students and teachers. Most informants also possess positive views about service-learning. Nevertheless, in terms of service-learning at PolyU, three different groups of views on service-learning are observed, namely, positive, negative, and mixed views. This paper also discusses teachers’ views on the anticipated difficulties of service-learning implementation and the ways, by which to promote the subject in the PolyU context.

scholarly journals USING FOCUS GROUPS TO STUDY ALN FACULTY MOTIVATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Starr Roxanne Hiltz ◽  
Peter Shea ◽  
Eunhee Kim
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Asynchronous Learning ◽  
Learning Networks ◽  
Faculty Motivation ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Teaching Online ◽  
Group Interviews ◽  
The University ◽  
Single Focus

What are the most significant factors that motivate and inhibit faculty with regard to teaching in online environments? And what are the specific kinds of experiences that underlie and explain the importance of these factors? One goal of this study was to add to the understanding of these issues, but the primary purpose of this study is determining how well these questions can be answered using the method of structured focus groups. This paper describes the methods and results of a pilot study conducted using four focus group interviews of faculty experienced in teaching using “Asynchronous Learning Networks” (ALN) at one university, and a single focus group at a second university in order to explore generalizability. For the university at which four group interviews were conducted, the rank orders of leading motivators and demotivators were quite consistent. Leading motivators include the flexibility allowed by being able to teach “anytime/anywhere;” better/more personal interaction and community building supported by the medium; the technical and creativity challenges offered by this mode of teaching; being able to reach more (and more diverse) students; and better course management. Major sources of dissatisfaction are more work, medium limitations, lack of adequate support and policies for teaching online, and the fact that the medium is not a good fit for some students. Very similar results were found through the replication focus group conducted at a different institution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document