ArticleQualitative health research2016
Deliberative Discussion Focus Groups.
Article in Qualitative health research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 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
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of the 'Working With Chronic Pain: Assessment of Impacts' (WORC-PAIN) Questionnaire for People in Paid Work With Chronic Pain.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- "If it's gonnae make things better then I don't have any issue": Perspectives of People Who Use Drugs on the Use of Routinely-Collected Data for Research.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
- Developing a tool to advance person-centred care in hospice: The little things are the big things.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Clinical Provider Perspectives on Remote Spirometry and mHealth for COPD.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Understanding of HIV cure research in a rural community with high prevalence: the case of uMkhanyakude district, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.AIDS research and therapy · 2025Article
- Opportunities and barriers to engaging caregivers in firearm suicide prevention: findings from focus groups with caregivers of veterans.Injury epidemiology · 2025Article
- A Proposal for Addressing Bioethical Concerns Along the 10-Step Framework for Community Engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- How community members in Uganda perceive controlled human infection studies.Research ethics · 2025Article
- Decision-making and role preferences for receiving individual pharmacogenomic research results among participants at a Ugandan HIV research institute.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Hispanic and Latinx Community Members on AI-Enabled mHealth Tools: Qualitative Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Using interview excerpts to facilitate focus group discussion.Qualitative research : QR · 2025Article
- Article
- Perceptions and Barriers to Accessing Myopia Management in the UK.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- 'Beyond the Reach of Palliative Care': A Qualitative Study of Patient and Public Experiences and Anticipation of Death and Dying.Qualitative health research · 2024Article
- 'Research ethics · 2024Article
- STELA: a community-centred approach to norm elicitation for AI alignment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Talking about death and dying: Findings from deliberative discussion groups with members of the public.Mortality (Abingdon, England) · 2024Article
- Participant views on practical considerations for feedback of individual genetic research results: a case study from Botswana.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2023Article
- Exploring attitudes to research involving human subjects among Vietnamese university students: establishing a prospective longitudinal mixed-methods student cohort at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
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
Abstract
This article discusses a new approach for the conduct of focus groups in health research. Identifying ways to educate and inform participants about the topic of interest prior to the focus group discussion can promote more quality data from informed opinions. Data on this deliberative discussion approach are provided from research within three federally funded studies. As healthcare continues to improve from scientific and technological advancements, educating the research participants prior to data collection about these complexities is essential to gather quality data.
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.