Advantages of asynchronous online focus groups and face-to-face focus groups as perceived by child, adolescent and adult participants: a survey study

BMC Research Notes

Sandra van Dulmen²  Marieke Zwaanswijk¹ 

[1] NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, P.O. Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, the Netherlands;Department of Health Sciences, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, Drammen, Norway

关键词: Perceptions;    Advantages;    Face-to-face focus groups;    Survey;    Online focus groups;   

Others  :  1125820
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-7-756

 received in 2014-04-16, accepted in 2014-10-14,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Online focus groups (OFGs) are increasingly used as a method of data collection. Although their advantages for research have repeatedly been described, participants’ opinions about OFGs have seldom been studied. We investigated OFG participants’ preference for participation in an OFG or a face-to-face focus group (FTF), as well as their perceptions of the advantages of both methods. We also investigated whether any differences exist between the perceptions of child, adolescent, and adult participants.

Methods

Participants’ opinions were studied by means of a questionnaire completed by 284 persons (aged 8–72 years) after their participation in one of 50 OFGs. The OFGs were conducted between December 2005 and December 2013 as part of 19 separate studies. Chi square tests with p <0.05 were used to test differences in perceived advantages of OFGs and FTFs between children, adolescents and adults.

Results

The most important advantage of OFGs as perceived by OFG participants was the possibility to participate at a moment most convenient to them. Adolescents and adults (90.5% and 95.9%) more often reported this as an advantage than children did (30.8%, p < 0.02). Another important perceived advantage of OFGs was the possibility to participate from home (69.1%). The most important advantage of FTFs was respondents’ perception that it is easier to have a discussion with the whole group when there is personal contact with others (48.5%). This advantage was mentioned significantly more often by adults (78.4%) than by children and adolescents (4.8% and 17.7%, p < 0.02).

Conclusions

Participants’ perceptions of OFGs partly concur with the advantages of OFGs as a research method. Whereas respondents generally value the convenience of participating at their own time and place, the anonymity of OFGs and the increased ease to discuss personal issues were mentioned less often as advantages by the participants. An aspect that may need more attention when conducting an OFG, is the absence of a fluid discussion, which is, according to our respondents, easier to achieve in an FTF. This underlines the importance of the moderator in enabling a constructive discussion.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Zwaanswijk and Van Dulmen; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Eysenbach G, Wyatt J: Using the internet for surveys and health research. J Med Internet Res 2002, 4:E13.
• [2]Moloney MF, Dietrich AS, Strickland O, Myerburg S: Using internet discussion boards as virtual focus groups. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 2003, 26:274-286.
• [3]O’Connor H, Madge C: Focus groups in cyberspace: using the internet for qualitative research. Qual Market Res 2003, 6:133-143.
• [4]Stewart K, Williams M: Researching online populations: the use of online focus groups for social research. Qual Res 2005, 5:395-416.
• [5]Murray PJ: Using virtual focus groups in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 1997, 7:542-545.
• [6]Rezabek R: Online focus groups: electronic discussions for research. Forum Qual Soc Res 2000, 1:18. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1128 webcite
• [7]Rhodes SD, Bowie DA, Hergenrather KC: Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003, 57:68-73.
• [8]Tates K, Zwaanswijk M, Otten R, Van Dulmen AM, Hoogerbrugge PM, Kamps WA, Bensing JM: Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: examples from paediatric oncology. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009, 9:15. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Zwaanswijk M, Tates K, Van Dulmen AM, Hoogerbrugge PM, Kamps WA, Bensing JM: Patients, parents’, and survivors’ communication preferences in paediatric oncology: results of online focus groups. BMC Pediatr 2007, 7:35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Krol M, Sixma H, Meerdink J, Wiersma H, Rademakers J: Exploring young patients’ perspectives on rehabilitation care: methods and challenges of organizing focus groups for children and adolescents. Child Care Health Dev 2013. doi:10.1111/cch.12095
• [11]Gaiser TJ: Conducting on-line focus groups. A methodological discussion. Soc Sci Comput Rev 1997, 15:135-144.
• [12]Kenny AJ: Interaction in cyberspace: an online focus group. J Adv Nurs 2005, 49:414-422.
• [13]Montoya-Weiss MM, Massey AP, Clapper DL: On-line focus groups: conceptual issues and a research tool. Eur J Market 1998, 32:713-723.
• [14]Underhill C, Olmsted MG: An experimental comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face focus groups. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2003, 21:506-512.
• [15]Joinson AN: Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. Eur J Soc Psychol 2001, 31:177-192.
• [16]Reid DJ, Reid FJM: Online focus groups: an in-depth comparison of computer-mediated and conventional focus group discussions. Int J Market Res 2005, 47:131-162.
• [17]Walston JT, Lissitz RW: Computer-mediated focus groups. Eval Rev 2000, 24:457-483.
• [18]Wilkerson JM, Iantaffi A, Grey JA, Bockting WO, Rosser BRS: Recommendations for internet-based qualitative health research with hard-to-reach populations. Qual Health Res 2014, 24:561-574.