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
. 2023 Oct 6;23(1):222.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02051-y.

Asynchronous online focus groups for research with people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and family caregivers: usefulness, acceptability and lessons learned

Affiliations

Asynchronous online focus groups for research with people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and family caregivers: usefulness, acceptability and lessons learned

Shelagh K Genuis et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: People with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) face disability- and travel-related barriers to research participation. We investigate the usefulness and acceptability of asynchronous, online focus groups (AOFGs) for research involving people affected by ALS (patients and family caregivers) and outline lessons learned.

Methods: The ALS Talk Project, consisting of seven AOFGs and 100 participants affected by ALS, provided context for this investigation. Hosted on the secure itracks Board™ platform, participants interacted in a threaded web forum structure. Moderators posted weekly discussion questions and facilitated discussion. Data pertaining to methodology, participant interaction and experience, and moderator technique were analyzed using itracks and NVivo 12 analytics (quantitative) and conventional content analysis and the constant-comparative approach (qualitative).

Results: There was active engagement within groups, with post lengths averaging 111.48 words and a complex network of branching interactions between participants. One third of participant responses included individual reflections without further interaction. Participants affirmed their co-group members, offered practical advice, and discussed shared and differing perspectives. Moderators responded to all posts, indicating presence and probing answers. AOFGs facilitated qualitative and quantitative data-gathering and flexible response to unanticipated events. Although total participation fell below 50% after 10-12 weeks, participants valued interacting with peers in an inclusive, confidential forum. Participants used a variety of personal devices, browsers, and operating systems when interacting on the online platform.

Conclusions: This methodological examination of AOFGs for patient-centred investigations involving people affected by ALS demonstrates their usefulness and acceptability, and advances knowledge of online research methodologies. Lessons learned include: early identification of research goals and participant needs is critical to selecting an AOFG platform; although duration longer than 10-12 weeks may be burdensome in this population, participants were positive about AOFGs; AOFGs offer real world flexibility enabling response to research challenges and opportunities; and, AOGFs can effectively foster safe spaces for sharing personal perspectives and discussing sensitive topics. With moderators playing an important role in fostering engagement, AOFGs facilitated rich data gathering and promoted reciprocity by fostering the exchange of ideas and interaction between peers. Findings may have implications for research involving other neurologically impaired and/or medically vulnerable populations.

Keywords: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Family caregivers; Online focus groups; Patients; Research design; Research participation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

SKG, WL, TB, and WSJ declare that they have no competing interests. GW declares a competing financial interest as the CEO of itracks™.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Focus group guides, topic consolidation
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Average participant messages per weekday over the course of the focus groups
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Distribution of participants’ responses by word count
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Illustration of branching discussion threads

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Davies L, LeClair KL, Bagley P, Blunt H, Hinton L, Ryan S, et al. Face-to-Face compared with online collected accounts of health and illness experiences: a scoping review. Qual. Health Res. 2020;1049732320935835. - PubMed
    1. Skelton K, Evans R, LaChenaye J, Amsbary J, Wingate M, Talbott L. Utilization of online focus groups to include mothers: a use-case design, reflection, and recommendations. Digit Health. 2018;4:2055207618777675. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zwaanswijk M, van Dulmen S. Advantages of asynchronous online focus groups and face-to-face focus groups as perceived by child, adolescent and adult participants: a survey study. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:756. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-756. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cook K, Jack S, Siden H, Thabane L, Browne G. Innovations in research with medically fragile populations: using bulletin board focus groups. Qual Rep. 2014;19:1–12.
    1. Gordon AR, Calzo JP, Eiduson R, Sharp K, Silverstein S, Lopez E, et al. Asynchronous online focus groups for health research: case study and lessons learned. Int J Qual Methods. 2021;20:1609406921990489. doi: 10.1177/1609406921990489. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types