'Unfocused groups': lessons learnt amid remote focus groups in the Philippines

被引:10
作者
Aligato, Mila F. [1 ]
Endoma, Vivienne [1 ]
Wachinger, Jonas [2 ]
Landicho-Guevarra, Jhoys [1 ]
Bravo, Thea Andrea [1 ]
Guevarra, Jerric Rhazel [1 ]
Landicho, Jeniffer [1 ]
McMahon, Shannon A. [2 ,3 ]
Renosa, Mark Donald C. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Res Inst Trop Med, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Muntinlupa, Philippines
[2] Heidelberg Univ, Heidelberg Inst Global Hlth, Heidelberg, Germany
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Int Hlth, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA
基金
比尔及梅琳达.盖茨基金会;
关键词
GROUP DISCUSSIONS; HIV;
D O I
10.1136/fmch-2021-001098
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has required tremendous shifts in data collection techniques. While an emerging body of research has described experiences conducting remote interviews, less attention has been paid to focus group discussions (FGDs). Herein, we present experiences conducting remote FGDs (n=9) with healthcare workers and caretakers of small children in the Philippines. We used 'Facebook Messenger Room' (FBMR), the preferred platform of participants. Despite some success, we generally encountered considerable challenges in terms of recruiting, retaining and moderating remote FGDs, particularly among caretakers of small children. Finding a quiet, private place proved unfeasible for many participants, who were juggling family demands in tight, locked down quarters. Connectivity issues and technological missteps compromised the flow of FGDs and minimised the ability to share and compare opinions. For the research team, remote FGDs resulted in a dramatic role shift for notetakers-from being passive observers to active tech supporters, chatbox referees and comoderators (when audio disruptions occurred). Finally, we note that remote FGDs via FBMR are associated with ethical complexities, particularly as participants often chose to use their personal Facebook accounts, which can compromise anonymity. We developed and continuously refined strategies to mitigate challenges, but ultimately decided to forgo FGDs. We urge fellow researchers with more successful experiences to guide the field in terms of capturing high-quality data that respond to research questions, while also contending with privacy concerns, both in online spaces, as well as physical privacy despite lockdowns in tight quarters.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 54 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2019, Dumlao-Abadilla
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2014, QUAL REP, DOI DOI 10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1233
[3]   The use of Facebook for virtual asynchronous focus groups in qualitative research [J].
Biedermann, Narelle .
CONTEMPORARY NURSE, 2018, 54 (01) :26-34
[4]   A critical comparison of offline focus groups, online focus groups and e-Delphi [J].
Brueggen, Elisabeth ;
Willems, Pieter .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MARKET RESEARCH, 2009, 51 (03) :363-381
[5]   "I am yet to encounter any survey that actually reflects my life": a qualitative study of inclusivity in sexual health research [J].
Carrotte, Elise R. ;
Vella, Alyce M. ;
Bowring, Anna L. ;
Douglass, Caitlin ;
Hellard, Margaret E. ;
Lim, Megan S. C. .
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2016, 16
[6]  
[陈继文 Chen Jiwen], 2019, [现代制造工程, Modern Manufacturing Engineering], P1
[7]  
CNN, 2020, CNN
[9]  
Confessore N., 2018, The New York TimesApril 4
[10]   STEER: Factors to Consider When Designing Online Focus Groups Using Audiovisual Technology in Health Research [J].
Daniels, Nicola ;
Gillen, Patricia ;
Casson, Karen ;
Wilson, Iseult .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE METHODS, 2019, 18