Crystale Purvis Cooper1, Cynthia M Jorgensen, Tracie L Merritt. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, USA. ccooper@cdc.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The focus group is a widely used qualitative method in public health research. Typically, focus groups involve face-to-face interaction, although focus groups have also been conducted via telephone conference calls. METHODS: The indexed medical and social sciences literature was reviewed to assess what is empirically known about the telephone focus group method and how this method has been used to explore health topics. RESULTS: Thirteen studies reported in 16 publications were found that used telephone focus groups. Of the 13 studies, 12 investigated health topics, and none explored any methodological issues. Some health studies used the telephone focus group method exclusively, whereas others used it in conjunction with additional methods. The studies involved a variety of lay and professional populations in six countries and explored a range of topics. Several of the studies included participants from a wide geographic area, such as across the entire United States. Two rationales for using the telephone focus group method were reported: assembling geographically disparate participants and increasing participant anonymity by eliminating visual contact. CONCLUSIONS: Health researchers appear to be the primary users of the telephone focus group method for academic research. The telephone focus group method may be especially useful in health studies involving populations that do not have adequate representation in any single region and studies investigating sensitive topics. Methods studies are needed to compare the group dynamics of telephone and in-person focus groups and determine the most appropriate size and duration for telephone focus groups.
BACKGROUND: The focus group is a widely used qualitative method in public health research. Typically, focus groups involve face-to-face interaction, although focus groups have also been conducted via telephone conference calls. METHODS: The indexed medical and social sciences literature was reviewed to assess what is empirically known about the telephone focus group method and how this method has been used to explore health topics. RESULTS: Thirteen studies reported in 16 publications were found that used telephone focus groups. Of the 13 studies, 12 investigated health topics, and none explored any methodological issues. Some health studies used the telephone focus group method exclusively, whereas others used it in conjunction with additional methods. The studies involved a variety of lay and professional populations in six countries and explored a range of topics. Several of the studies included participants from a wide geographic area, such as across the entire United States. Two rationales for using the telephone focus group method were reported: assembling geographically disparate participants and increasing participant anonymity by eliminating visual contact. CONCLUSIONS: Health researchers appear to be the primary users of the telephone focus group method for academic research. The telephone focus group method may be especially useful in health studies involving populations that do not have adequate representation in any single region and studies investigating sensitive topics. Methods studies are needed to compare the group dynamics of telephone and in-person focus groups and determine the most appropriate size and duration for telephone focus groups.
Authors: Linda M Frazier; Virginia A Miller; Douglas V Horbelt; James E Delmore; Brigitte E Miller; Angelia M Paschal Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2010-02-08
Authors: Elizabeth E Marfeo; Stephen M Haley; Alan M Jette; Susan V Eisen; Pengsheng Ni; Kara Bogusz; Mark Meterko; Christine M McDonough; Leighton Chan; Diane E Brandt; Elizabeth K Rasch Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-03-30 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Joseph G L Lee; Paige E Averett; Tiffany Blanchflower; Nunzio Landi; Kyle R Gregory Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ilana N Ackerman; Joanne E Jordan; Sharon Van Doornum; Margaret Ricardo; Andrew M Briggs Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 2.362