Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Aug;28(10):1658-1673.
doi: 10.1177/1049732317705355. Epub 2017 May 4.

Sensitive Health Topics With Underserved Patient Populations: Methodological Considerations for Online Focus Group Discussions

Affiliations

Sensitive Health Topics With Underserved Patient Populations: Methodological Considerations for Online Focus Group Discussions

Sari L Reisner et al. Qual Health Res. 2018 Aug.

Abstract

Online focus group discussions provide an anonymous environment to assess sensitive, health-related experiences that may be difficult to discuss utilizing traditional face-to-face modalities, particularly for marginalized populations such as female-to-male trans masculine (TM) transgender individuals. This article reviews the history, advantages, and disadvantages of online focus groups, with an emphasis for research about sensitive issues with stigmatized, rare, and/or geographically dispersed patient populations. The article then evaluates the success of online focus group discussions as a case study using data from four asynchronous online focus groups conducted between September 2015 and February 2016 that explored topics related to sexual health care access with U.S. TM adults ( N = 29). The rationale for selecting an asynchronous online methodology is described along with the unique methodological considerations that emerged in developing the study protocol. We conclude by sharing lessons learned, including innovations for maximizing participant engagement and comfort to elicit rich qualitative data.

Keywords: Boston; United States; focus groups; online; qualitative methods; sexual health; transgender.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

    1. Abrams KM, Wang Z, Song YJ, Galindo-Gonzalez S. Data richness trade-offs between face-to-face, online audiovisual, and online text-only focus groups. Social Science Computer Review. 2014;33:80–96.
    1. Agénor M, Peitzmeier SM, Bernstein IM, McDowell M, Alizaga NM, Reisner SL, … Potter J. Perceptions of cervical cancer risk and screening among transmasculine individuals: Patient and provider perspectives. Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2016:1–15. - PubMed
    1. Asbury JE. Overview of focus group research. Qualitative Health Research. 1995;5:414–420.
    1. Bloor M. Focus groups in social research. London: Sage; 2001.
    1. Carey MA, Smith MW. Capturing the group effect in focus groups: A special concern in analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 1994;4:123–127.

Publication types