Focus group research in family planning and reproductive health care (original) (raw)

Obtaining sensitive information: The need for more than focus groups

Reproductive Health Matters, 1994

Q UALITATIVE research methods such as in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and participant observation are increasingly being used in reproductive health research in order to enhance information obtained from more traditional quantitative data collection methods such as the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices (KABP) survey. 1 Researchers and programme planners alike are beginning to recognise that qualitative methods can be used to elicit sensitive information on determinants of behaviour such as attitudes and social norms, as well as the cultural context in which these behaviours take place. Because these methods utilise open-ended research guides, they can be used to generate hypotheses about factors not already known to the researcher. This allows for domains of interest to be explored without underlying assumptions about the degree to which the respondents' knowledge, attitudes or behaviour fit within preconceived patterns.

Practical Advice for Planning and Conducting Focus Groups

AORN Journal, 2000

The purpose of this article is to provide researchers with suggestions for adapting focus group guidelines to facilitate data collection and ensure optimal use of resources. Insights gained from focus groups conducted by the authors with women at risk for HIV and women with a history of pregnancy after perinatal loss will be presented as examples.

The focus groups in social research: advantages and disadvantages

Quality & Quantity, 2011

The focus group (FG) technique has been recently rediscovered by social scientists. It has become the subject of important methodological discussions and it is now considered a very innovative research method. However, such a widespread use of FG seems to have become a fashionable research technique. The impression is that FG is often adopted without any prior consideration of whether it really is the most suitable research technique for achieving the cognitive goals of the research. At the same time, it seems that the FG is often adopted only because it is considered an easy-to-organise and inexpensive technique. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the nature of the FG, analyse its advantages and disadvantages and identify the cognitive problems that it helps to face. In order to discuss these two points, I will focus on the two main characteristics that differentiate the FG from other techniques of information gathering in social research. Firstly, in FGs the informative source is a group. Secondly, the heuristic value of this technique lies in the kind of interaction that emerges during the debate. Several researchers have indicated these two aspects as the main characteristics of FG; but only few authors have translated these comments into serious epistemological and methodological knowledge, thus allowing the FG to give its best results.

The What, Why and How of Conducting Focus-Group Research

International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2019

Qualitative research methodology is considered to be appropriate if a researcher plans to scrutinise a new area of study or research a topic when it is not suitable to use observational techniques such as attitudes and decision-making. The choice of any research methodology depends on the purpose of the research. In social science research, the three most common qualitative methods are observation, interviews, and focus groups. Each method is particularly suitable for obtaining a specific type of data. For example, the use of observation is suitable for collecting data on naturally occurring behaviour found in their usual contexts. Interviews are most appropriate for collecting data on people's personal histories, perspectives, and experiences, particularly when exploring sensitive topics. Focus groups are effective in obtaining information on how groups of individuals think or feel about a specific issue and they also give greater insight into why certain beliefs are held. This paper aims to highlight different issues with regard to using focus groups as a qualitative method in the field of social sciences that can be integrated into an overall study design or can occur independently when a specific issue is being investigated. It starts off with an overview of focus groups and presents the values and limitations of using focus groups followed by some principles for composing them. The paper also discusses the role of the moderator. It concludes with the ethical considerations that should be taken into account when planning to use the focus group methodology.

IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD ONE CONSIDER EMPLOYING THE FOCUS GROUP AS A RESEARCH METHOD?

Anthonio Research Publication, 2014

In recent times, focus group has resurfaced as an acceptable method for gathering qualitative data in social sciences, especially among sociologists, and across a wide range of academic/applied social research areas. Focus group for long has served as a form of qualitative research, whereby a group of selected individuals are asked structured questions regarding several areas like personal views, personal experiences, ideas, and behaviours towards specific products or services. Focus group questions are usually asked in an interactive group scenario where participants are allowed and given the freedom to communicate openly with other fellow participants. Analysis of focus group information brings both dispute and changes when compared to other types of qualitative data. However, there are certain situations where focus group as a research method is best suited for due to its nature and this is what this paper will attempt to explore.

Focus groups in health research: A methodological review

Health Sociology …, 1992

In recent years, public health and medical researchers have increasingly employed the concepts and methodologies of the social and behavioural sciences. Much public health research involves the collection of information from people concerning their health knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, behaviours and customs.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Focus Group Research but Were Afraid to Ask

2013

As a soon-to-be researcher, I found this book incredibly easy to read. It dispenses with much of the jargon that often makes professional and research literature inaccessible to some and, instead, renders the topic – focus group research – immediately approachable to readers, without short-changing or downplaying important issues that need to be considered when doing focus group research. When choosing to do focus group research, this book is the one I will turn to help me plan and consider all of the pieces that are critical to conducting a successful focus group. There is no area of focus group research that the authors leave untouched, and the fact that they do so in a mere 102 pages is remarkable.

How to … Conduct a Focus Group Discussion (FGD). Methodological Manual

2017

Focus group discussion with elderly participants about ageing, health and care in Tahuna (North Sulawesi), Indonesia. Wall posters state the FGD topic, objectives and questions (photo by P. van Eeuwijk). Focus group discussion with men in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, about the use of health services during pregnancy and delivery (photo by C. Pfeiffer).

Best practice' in focus group research: making sense of different views

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2006

F RE E M A N T . ( 2 0 0 6 ) Journal of Advanced Nursing 56(5), 491-497 'Best practice' in focus group research: making sense of different views Aim. The aim of this paper is to identify the broad epistemological debates which underpin conflicting statements on 'rigour' and 'good practice' in qualitative research; to relate divergences in statements of 'good practice' in focus group design made by the pre-eminent commentators on focus group methodology to these broader epistemological debates; and to stimulate further reflection on the range of possible uses for focus groups in health services research. Considerations of the analysis of focus group data are beyond the scope of this paper. Discussion. Focus groups are a popular form of qualitative data collection, and may be defined as a particular form of group interview intended to exploit group dynamics. While qualitative research may be broadly characterized as concerned with exploring people's lived experiences and perspectives in context, it is a heterogeneous field incorporating many theoretical traditions. Consequently, qualitative researchers may be informed by a wide range of assumptions about the nature of knowledge (epistemology). These assumptions, whether implicit or explicit, have important consequences for claims about rigour and 'good practice' in data collection. Thus, while there is broad agreement over the general form of focus groups, statements of 'good practice' in terms of its application are varied. A close reading of texts by the two pre-eminent commentators on the practical application of focus groups identifies differences in 'best practice' focus group design related to their respective epistemological assumptions, and differences principally related to sampling techniques, composition of groups, the perceived role of group interaction and the nature of inference. Conclusion. Explicit consideration of the epistemological basis of divergent statements of 'best practice' in focus group design forces health services researchers to balance the demands of theory with the practicalities of conducting focus group research within complex host organisations; and encourages readers to apply appraisal criteria appropriate to the stated intentions of researchers.