ArticleGlobal health action2014
Interpretive focus groups: a participatory method for interpreting and extending secondary analysis of qualitative data.
Article in Global health action, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Flipping the Lens: Using Instagram for Photovoice and Videovoice With LGBTQ+ Migrants in São Paulo.Qualitative inquiry : QI · 2026Article
- Co-creation methods for public health research - characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Social and Emotional Skills in at-Risk Adolescents through Participation in Sports.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Using participatory research to co-produce an education and training e-resource to support care home staff to meet the sexuality, intimacy and relationship needs of care home residents with and without dementia.Frontiers in dementia · 2023Article
- Implications of male circumcision for women in Papua New Guinea: a transformational grounded theory study.BMC women's health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipatory approaches to qualitative research practice constantly change in response to evolving research environments. Researchers are increasingly encouraged to undertake secondary analysis of qualitative data, despite epistemological and ethical challenges. Interpretive focus groups can be described as a more participative method for groups to analyse qualitative data.
objectiveTo facilitate interpretive focus groups with women in Papua New Guinea to extend analysis of existing qualitative data and co-create new primary data. The purpose of this was to inform a transformational grounded theory and subsequent health promoting action.
designA two-step approach was used in a grounded theory study about how women experience male circumcision in Papua New Guinea. Participants analysed portions or 'chunks' of existing qualitative data in story circles and built upon this analysis by using the visual research method of storyboarding.
resultsNew understandings of the data were evoked when women in interpretive focus groups analysed the data 'chunks'. Interpretive focus groups encouraged women to share their personal experiences about male circumcision. The visual method of storyboarding enabled women to draw pictures to represent their experiences. This provided an additional focus for whole-of-group discussions about the research topic.
conclusionsInterpretive focus groups offer opportunity to enhance trustworthiness of findings when researchers undertake secondary analysis of qualitative data. The co-analysis of existing data and co-generation of new data between research participants and researchers informed an emergent transformational grounded theory and subsequent health promoting action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.