Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative methods

Abstract

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.

Evaluating Bang for the Buck

“…This finding was likely affected by our exclusion of recruitment time in the data collection time calculation. Coenen et al (2012), for example, found that the mean recruitment time for FGs was about 8 times more than for IDIs, which is consistent with the number of additional participants involved.…”

“…While it is a limitation of our analyses that we did not include recruitment time, analysis time, or space rental in our calculations, it would be simple enough for other researchers to add these costs to the equation if they were available for a particular study. We believe that inclusion of these variables would likely further increase FG costs relative to IDI costs, given the additional time and costs associated with FGs in all of these areas (see Coenen, Stamm, Stucki, & Cieza, 2012, for detailed comparisons of time required for FG and IDI activities, including recruitment and analysis). Given these differences, we estimate that our comparative cost-effectiveness calculations are on the conservative side and would expect IDIs, in many contexts, to be even more cost-effective, relative to FGs, than our data indicate.…”

The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: Functioning and disability from the patient perspective

“…In previous Core Set projects and ICF research projects, the first three steps of the meaning condensation methodology as described by Kvale (1996) was used (Boonen et al, 2009;Coenen et al, 2012;Coenen et al, 2011;Glässel et al, 2011;Gradinger et al, 2011). The essence of that method is the condensation part (i.e.,…”

Mapping patient goals to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): Examining the content validity of the low back pain core sets

“…Firstly, when two consecutive 'units' revealed no new categories and, secondly, when two consecutive 'units' revealed fewer than 5% new categories, with respect to the categories that have already been linked. The 'units' in these studies have usually been focus groups and individual interviews, with saturation generally reached after 5 focus groups and 9 to 12 individual interviews (27,34). However, unlike focus groups or interviews, we were unlikely to obtain the same richness of qualitative information from each participant due to the structure and specificity of our data collection method, a written questionnaire.…”