The influence of ethnic group composition on focus group discussions

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Jess Holley¹  Theresa Ellmers¹  Nan Greenwood¹ 

[1] Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, St George’s University of London and Kingston University, 2nd Floor Grosvenor Wing, St George’s University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, UK

关键词: Stroke;    Caregiver;    Carer;    Ethnic groups;    Focus groups;   

Others  :  1090966
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-14-107

 received in 2014-04-04, accepted in 2014-09-17,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Focus groups are commonly used to explore participants’ experiences in health and social care research. Although it is suggested that having demographically homogenous groups may help put participants at ease, the evidence is sparse.

The aims of the paper are to: explore the impact of relative ethnic homogeneity and heterogeneity of focus group participants on the group discussions; improve understanding of homogeneity and heterogeneity in focus groups; suggest ways to operationalise concepts such as being ‘more comfortable’ with other focus group participants.

Method

Digitally recorded focus groups were undertaken with family carers of stroke survivors and were later transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. Groups were designated as more or less ethnically homogenous. More homogenous groups included, for example, only White British or Asian Indian participants whilst more heterogeneous groups comprised a mixture of, for example, Asian, White British and Black Caribbean participants.

Results

Forty-one carers participated in seven focus groups. Analysis revealed differences in discussions around ethnicity between the more or less ethnically homogenous groups. For example, participants in more ethnically homogenous focus groups were more likely to say ethnicity might influence perceptions of social care services. On the other hand, more heterogeneous groups emphasised similarity in carers’ experiences, irrespective of ethnicity. Participants in the more homogenous groups were also more likely to make potentially controversial comments relating to ethnic differences. Additionally they appeared to be more at ease with each other discussing the topic. For example, they spontaneously mentioned ethnic differences earlier in these groups.

In contrast, analysis of topics not specifically related to ethnicity, such as the difficult experiences of being a carer, produced no discernible patterns when comparing more and less homogenous focus groups.

Conclusion

Considerations around focus group participant demographic homogeneity and heterogeneity are complex and these terms may be most usefully applied only in relative terms.

Data derived from more homogenous groups complement data from more heterogeneous groups providing different perspectives. Depending on the focus of the discussion, having characteristics in common, such as being a carer can override other differences.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Greenwood et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kidd PS, Marshall MB: Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qual Health Res 2000, 10:293-308.
• [2]Kitzinger J: The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn 1994, 16:103-120.
• [3]Culley L, Hudson N, Rapport F: Using focus groups with minority ethnic communities: researching infertility in British Asian communities. Qual Health Res 2007, 17:102-112.
• [4]Liamputtong P: Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice. London: Sage; 2011.
• [5]Morgan DL: Planning Focus Groups: Focus Group Kit 2. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 1998.
• [6]Greenwood N, Bowling A, Holley J, Ellmers T, Mein G, Cloud GC: A qualitative exploration of ethnic differences in satisfaction with social care amongst older carers of stroke survivors. NIHR-SSCR Funders Repin press
• [7]Sim J: Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus group. J Adv Nurs 1998, 28:345-352.
• [8]Kitzinger J: The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn 1994, 16:103-121.
• [9]Bhopal R: Glossary of terms relating to ethnicity and race: for reflection and debate. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004, 58:441-445.
• [10]Salway S, Allmark P, Barley R, Higginbottom G, Gerrish K, Ellison GT: Researching ethnic inequalities. Soc Res Update 2009, 58:1-4.
• [11]Burton J, Nandi A, Platt L: Measuring ethnicity: challenges and opportunities for survey research. Ethn Racial Stud 2010, 33:1332-1349.
• [12]Coker N: Racism in Medicine: An Agenda for Change. London: King’s Fund; 2001.
• [13]Wilkinson S: Focus groups in feminist research: power, interaction, and the co-construction of meaning. Women’s Stud Int Forum 1998, 21:111-125.
• [14]Duggleby W: What about focus group interaction data? Qual Health Res 2005, 15:832-840.
• [15]Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006, 3:77-101.
• [16]Ritchie J, Spencer L: Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research. In Analysing Qualitative Data. Edited by Bryman A, Burgess B. London: Routledge; 1994:173-194.
• [17]Ward DJ, Furber C, Tierney S, Swallow V: Using framework analysis in nursing research: a worked example. J Adv Nurs 2013, 69:2423-2431.
• [18]Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S: Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Meth 2013, 13:117. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Warr DJ: ‘It was fun… but we don’t usually talk about these things’: analysing sociable interaction in focus groups. Qua Inq 2005, 11:200-225.
• [20]Greenwood N, Habibi R, Smith R, Manthorpe J: Barriers to access and minority ethnic carers’ satisfaction with social care services in the community: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative literature. Health Soc Care Community1365-2545.
• [21]Kitzinger J, Farquar C: The Analytical Potential of ‘Sensitive moments’ in Focus Group Discussions. In Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. Edited by Barbour RS, Kitzinger J. London: Sage; 1999:21-35.
• [22]Amador TK, Travis SS, McAuley WJ, Bernard M, McCutcheon M: Recruitment and retention of ethnically diverse long-term family caregivers for research. J Gerontol Soc Work 2006, 47:139-152.
• [23]Gill PS, Plumridge G, Khunti K, Greenfield S: Under-representation of minority ethnic groups in cardiovascular research: a semi-structured interview study. Fam Prac 2013, 30:233-241.
• [24]Litosseliti L: Using Focus Groups in Research. London: Continuum; 2003.
• [25]Wilkinson S: Focus groups in health research: exploring the meanings of health and illness. J Health Psychol 1998, 3:329-348.
• [26]Smithson J: Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2000, 3:103-119.
• [27]RATS Guidelines. http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/rats webcite