Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study
- PMID: 22943658
- PMCID: PMC3447657
- DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-134
Scanning for satisfaction or digging for dismay? Comparing findings from a postal survey with those from a focus group-study
Abstract
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.
Similar articles
-
Do you recommend cancer screening to your patients? A cross-sectional study of Norwegian doctors.BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 30;9(8):e029739. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029739. BMJ Open. 2019. PMID: 31473617 Free PMC article.
-
A survey of practice preferences and attitudes to the New Zealand Guidelines for the Management of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding.Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Oct;42(4):374-8. doi: 10.1111/j.0004-8666.2002.00376.x. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002. PMID: 12403284
-
Canadian oncologists and clinical practice guidelines: a national survey of attitudes and reported use. Provincial Lung Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario.Oncology. 2000 Nov;59(4):283-90. doi: 10.1159/000012184. Oncology. 2000. PMID: 11096339
-
[Psychometric characteristics of questionnaires designed to assess the knowledge, perceptions and practices of health care professionals with regards to alcoholic patients].Encephale. 2004 Sep-Oct;30(5):437-46. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(04)95458-9. Encephale. 2004. PMID: 15627048 Review. French.
-
Neurointerventional surveys between 2000 and 2023: a systematic review.J Neurointerv Surg. 2025 May 22;17(6):640-645. doi: 10.1136/jnis-2024-022298. J Neurointerv Surg. 2025. PMID: 39379317
Cited by
-
Complex return to work process - caseworkers' experiences of facilitating return to work for individuals on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders.BMC Public Health. 2020 Nov 30;20(1):1822. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09804-0. BMC Public Health. 2020. PMID: 33256648 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Identifying environmental health priorities in underserved populations: a study of rural versus urban communities.Public Health. 2013 Nov;127(11):994-1004. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2013.08.005. Epub 2013 Nov 14. Public Health. 2013. PMID: 24239281 Free PMC article.
-
Feasibility of implementing Extubation Advisor, a clinical decision support tool to improve extubation decision-making in the ICU: a mixed-methods observational study.BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 12;11(8):e045674. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045674. BMJ Open. 2021. PMID: 34385234 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research, vol. 16. 2. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks; 1997.
-
- Forthofer MS. In: Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editor. Sage Publications, London; 2003. Status of mixed methods in the health sciences; pp. 527–540.
-
- 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. doi: 10.1007/BF00942245. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources