Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Claire Glenton²  Benedicte Carlsen¹ 

[1]Uni Rokkan Centre, Nygaardsgt 5, N-5015 , Bergen, Norway

[2]The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, PO Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130, Oslo, Norway

关键词: GPs;    Primary care physicians;    Mixed methods;    Surveys;    Qualitative;    Focus groups;    Research methodology;   

Others  :  1126802
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-134

 received in 2012-08-05, accepted in 2012-08-29,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Despite growing support for mixed methods approaches we still have little systematic knowledge about the consequences of combining surveys and focus groups. While the methodological aspects of questionnaire surveys have been researched extensively, the characteristics of focus group methodology are understudied. We suggest and discuss whether the focus group setting, as compared to questionnaire surveys, encourages participants to exaggerate views in a negative direction.

Discussion

Based on an example from our own research, where we conducted a survey as a follow up of a focus group study, and with reference to theoretical approaches and empirical evidence from the literature concerning survey respondent behaviour and small group dynamics, we discuss the possibility that a discrepancy in findings between the focus groups and the questionnaire reflects characteristics of the two different research methods. In contrast to the survey, the focus group study indicated that doctors were generally negative to clinical guidelines. We were not convinced that this difference in results was due to methodological flaws in either of the studies, and discuss instead how this difference may have been the result of a general methodological phenomenon.

Summary

Based on studies of how survey questionnaires influence responses, it appears reasonable to claim that surveys are more likely to find exaggerated positive views. Conversely, there are some indications in the literature that focus groups may result in complaints and overly negative attitudes, but this is still an open question. We suggest that while problematic issues tend to be under-communicated in questionnaire surveys, they may be overstated in focus groups.

We argue for the importance of increasing our understanding of focus group methodology, for example by reporting interesting discrepancies in mixed methods studies. In addition, more experimental research on focus groups should be conducted to advance the methodology and to test our hypothesis.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Carlsen and Glenton; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Johansen I, Carlsen B, Hunskaar S: Psychiatry out-of-hours: a focus group study of GPs' experiences in Norwegian casualty clinics. BMC Heal Serv Res 2011, 11(1):132. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Helitzer-Allen DL, Kendall C: Explaining differences between qualitative and quantitative data: a study of chemoprophylaxis during pregnancy. Health Educ Behav 1992, 19(1):41-54.
• [3]Morgan DL: Focus groups as qualitative research, vol. 16. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks; 1997.
• [4]Forthofer MS: Status of mixed methods in the health sciences. In Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Edited by Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Sage Publications, London; 2003:527-540.
• [5]Hines AM: Linking qualitative and quantitative methods in cross-cultural survey research: techniques from cognitive science. Am J Community Psychol 1993, 21(6):729-746.
• [6]O'Cathain A: Editorial: mixed methods research in the health sciences: a quiet revolution. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2009, 3(1):3-6.
• [7]O'Donnell AB, Lutfey KE, Marceau LD, McKinlay JB: Using focus groups to improve the validity of cross-national survey research: a study of physician decision making. Qual Heal Res 2007, 17(7):971-981.
• [8]Mendlinger S, Cwikel J: Spiraling between qualitative and quantitative data on women's health behaviors: a double helix model for mixed methods. Qual Heal Res 2008, 18(2):280-293.
• [9]Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research: rigour and qualitative research. BMJ 1995, 311(6997):109-112.
• [10]Morgan DL: Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol 1996, 22(1):129-152.
• [11]Bernard HR, Killworth P, Kronenfeld D, Sailer L: The problem of informant accuracy: the validity of retrospective data. Annu Rev Anthropol 1984, 13:495-517.
• [12]Schuman H, Johnson MP: Attitudes and behavior. Annu Rev Sociol 1976, 2:161-207.
• [13]Stone AA, Turkkan JS, Bachrach CA, Jobe JB, Kurtzman HS, Cain VS (Eds): The science of self report. Implications for research and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah; 2000.
• [14]Sudman S, Bradburn NM: A review and synthesis. Aldine Pub. Co., Chicago; 1974.
• [15]Carlsen B, Glenton C: What about N? a methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11(1):26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Fern EF: The Use of Focus Groups for Idea Generation: The Effects of Group Size, Acquaintanceship, and Moderator on Response Quantity and Quality. J Mark Res 1982, 19(1):1-13.
• [17]Hyde A, Howlett E, Brady D, Drennan J: The focus group method: insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents. Soc Sci Med 2005, 61(12):2588-2599.
• [18]Morgan DL (Ed): Successful focus groups. Advancing the state of the art. SAGE, Newbury Park; 1993.
• [19]Fern EF: Focus groups: a review of some contradictory evidence, implications, and suggestions for future research. Adv Consum Res 1983, 10:121-126.
• [20]Albrecht TL, Johnson GM, Walther JB: Understanding communication processes in focus groups. In Successful focus groups advancing the state of the art. Edited by Morgan DL. Sage Publications, Newbury Park; 1993:51-64.
• [21]Carlsen B: The last frontier? autonomy, uncertainty and standardisation in general practice. Heal Sociol Rev 2010, 19(2):260-272.
• [22]Carlsen B, Bringedal B: Attitudes to clinical guidelines - do GPs differ from other medical doctors? BMJ Quality & Safety 2011, 20(2):158-162. qshc.2009.034249
• [23]Carlsen B, Kjellberg P: Guidelines; from foe to friend? comparative interviews with GPs in Norway and Denmark. BMC Heal Serv Res 2010, 10(1):17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Carlsen B, Norheim OF: "What lies beneath it all?" an interview study of GPs' attitudes to the use of guidelines. BMC Heal Serv Res 2008, 8:218. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative methods for health research. Sage, London; 2004.
• [26]NAV [The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Organisation]: Fastlegeordningen, Hovedtallsrapport [The regular GP scheme, Key statistical report.]. , Oslo; 2007. http://www.nav.no/page?id=1073743257Accessed May 2007
• [27]Brown L, Tyane M, Bertrand J, Don L, Abou-ouakil M, de Maria L: Quality of care in family planning services in Morocco. Stud Fam Plan 1995, 26(3):154-168.
• [28]Sommer B, Sommer R: A Practical Guide to Behavioral Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1997.
• [29]Farquhar CM, Kofa EW, Slutsky JR: Clinicians' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Med J Aust 2002, 177(9):502-506.
• [30]Adams AS, Soumerai SB, Lomas J, Ross-Degnan D: Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care 1999, 11(3):187-192.
• [31]Kitzinger J: Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995, 311(7000):299-302.
• [32]Isenberg DJ: Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. J Personal Soc Psychol 1986, 50(6):1141-1151.
• [33]Asch SE: Group forces in the modification and distortion of judgements. In Social Psychology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs; 1952.
• [34]Hollander JA: The social contexts of focus groups. J Contemp Ethnogr 2004, 33(5):602-637.
• [35]Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN, Rook DW: Focus groups. theory and practice, vol. 20. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks; 2007.
• [36]Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (Eds): The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks; 2005.
• [37]Robson C: Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner–Researchers. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford; 2002.
• [38]Morgan DL, Krueger RA: When to use focus groups and why. In Successful focus groups Advancing the state of the art. Edited by Morgan DL. Sage Publications, Newbury Park; 1993.
• [39]Baron RS, Hoppe SI, Kao CF, Brunsman B, Linneweh B, Rogers D: Social corroboration and opinion extremity. J Exp Soc Psychol 1996, 32(6):537-560.
• [40]Sussman S, Burton D, Dent CW, Stacy AW, Flay BR: Use of focus groups in developing an adolescent tobacco use cessation program: collective norm effects1. J Appl Soc Psychol 1991, 21(21):1772-1782.
• [41]Hogg MA, Turner JC, Davidson B: Polarized norms and social frames of reference: a test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1990, 11(1):77-100.
• [42]Stycos JM: A critique of focus group and survey research: the machismo case. Stud Fam Plan 1981, 12(12):450-456.
• [43]Gaskell G: Individual and group interviewing. In Qualitative researching. Edited by Bauer MW, Gaskell G. Sage Publications, London; 2005:38-56.
• [44]Obeng-Quaidoo I: New development-oriented models of communication research/or Africa: the case for focus group research in Africa. Africa Media Review 1987, 1(2):52-65.
• [45]Watts M, Ebbutt D: More than the sum of the parts: research methods in group interviewing. Br Educ Res J 1987, 13(1):25-34.
• [46]Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD: Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ 2009, 339:b3496.
• [47]Mays N, Pope C: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000, 320(7226):50-52.
• [48]Harding S: Whose science? Whose knowledge?. Cornell University Press, Cornell; 1991.