Michaela Coenen1, Tanja A Stamm, Gerold Stucki, Alarcos Cieza. 1. Institute for Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Research Unit for Biopsychosocial Health, Ludwig-Maximilians-University , Marchioninistr. 17, 81377 , Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare two different approaches to performing focus groups and individual interviews, an open approach, and an approach based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis attended focus groups (n = 49) and individual interviews (n = 21). Time, number of concepts, ICF categories identified, and sample size for reaching saturation of data were compared. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and independent t tests were performed. RESULTS: With an overall time of 183 h, focus groups were more time consuming than individual interviews (t = 9.782; P < 0.001). In the open approach, 188 categories in the focus groups and 102 categories in the interviews were identified compared to the 231 and 110 respective categories identified in the ICF-based approach. Saturation of data was reached after performing five focus groups and nine individual interviews in the open approach and five focus groups and 12 individual interviews in the ICF-based approach. CONCLUSION: The method chosen should depend on the objective of the study, issues related to the health condition, and the study's participants. We recommend performing focus groups if the objective of the study is to comprehensively explore the patient perspective.
PURPOSE: To compare two different approaches to performing focus groups and individual interviews, an open approach, and an approach based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). METHODS:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis attended focus groups (n = 49) and individual interviews (n = 21). Time, number of concepts, ICF categories identified, and sample size for reaching saturation of data were compared. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and independent t tests were performed. RESULTS: With an overall time of 183 h, focus groups were more time consuming than individual interviews (t = 9.782; P < 0.001). In the open approach, 188 categories in the focus groups and 102 categories in the interviews were identified compared to the 231 and 110 respective categories identified in the ICF-based approach. Saturation of data was reached after performing five focus groups and nine individual interviews in the open approach and five focus groups and 12 individual interviews in the ICF-based approach. CONCLUSION: The method chosen should depend on the objective of the study, issues related to the health condition, and the study's participants. We recommend performing focus groups if the objective of the study is to comprehensively explore the patient perspective.
Authors: J M Albers; H H Kuper; P L van Riel; M L Prevoo; M A van 't Hof; A M van Gestel; J L Severens Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: K H Chan; J Panoch; A Carroll; S Downs; M P Cain; R Frankel; B Cockrum; C Moore; S Wiehe Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2019-04-27 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Pamela A Royer; Lenora M Olson; Brandi Jackson; Lana S Weber; Lori Gawron; Jessica N Sanders; David K Turok Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2019-07-26
Authors: Lauren E Blau; Leah M Lipsky; Katherine W Dempster; Miriam H Eisenberg Colman; Anna Maria Siega-Riz; Myles S Faith; Tonja R Nansel Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2019-12-06 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: B J Duijnisveld; C Saraç; M J A Malessy; The Icf Brachial Plexus Advisory Board; T P M Vliet Vlieland; R G H H Nelissen Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 5.853
Authors: Charlotte M Kugler; Karina K De Santis; Tanja Rombey; Kaethe Goossen; Jessica Breuing; Nadja Könsgen; Tim Mathes; Simone Hess; René Burchard; Dawid Pieper Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 2.655