Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30924782›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Computer-Mediated Communication to Facilitate Synchronous Online Focus Group Discussions: Feasibility Study for Qualitative HIV Research Among Transgender Women Across the United States.

Andrea L Wirtz, Erin E Cooney, Aeysha Chaudhry, Sari L Reisner, American Cohort To Study HIV Acquisition Among Transgender Women

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07461857 (Minority-focused Environmental Health Education and Tracking), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07461857 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Minority-focused Environmental Health Education and Tracking (MEET) Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMillion Marker Wellness, Inc.Ran2025 to 2026Enrolled151ConditionsEnvironmental ExposureArmsEducation curriculum
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. [Expectations of generation Y for digital health innovations].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andrea L WirtzDepartment of Epidemiology, Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2063-1534
Erin E CooneyDepartment of Epidemiology, Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9563-1822
Aeysha ChaudhryDivision of General Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5367-0217
Sari L ReisnerDivision of General Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7868-4746
American Cohort To Study HIV Acquisition Among Transgender Women *Department of Epidemiology, Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Funding

Vaccine Response and Immunotherapeutics SWGP30AI094189 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Bryan Lau · 2012 to 2026
$67.0M
LITE CONNECT: Addressing testing gaps and epidemiologic disparities of COVID-19 amongtransgender people in the United StatesUH3AI133669 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI REISNER, SARI, WIRTZ, ANDREA L · 2019 to 2022
$6.9M
American Cohort to Study HIV Acquisition among Transgender Women in High Risk AreasUG3AI133669 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI REISNER, SARI, WIRTZ, ANDREA L · 2017 to 2018
$3.5M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI094189NIAID NIH HHS UG3 AI133669NIAID NIH HHS UH3 AI133669
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNovel, technology-based methods are rapidly increasing in popularity across multiple facets of quantitative research. Qualitative research, however, has been slower to integrate technology into research methodology. One method, computer-mediated communication (CMC), has been utilized to a limited extent for focus group discussions.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess feasibility of an online video conferencing system to further adapt CMC to facilitate synchronous focus group discussions among transgender women living in six cities in eastern and southern United States.

methodsBetween August 2017 and January 2018, focus group discussions with adult transgender women were conducted in English and Spanish by research teams based in Boston, MA, and Baltimore, MD. Participants were sampled from six cities: Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; New York, NY; Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; and Miami, FL. This was formative research to inform a technology-enhanced cohort study to assess HIV acquisition among transgender women. This analysis focused on the methodologic use of CMC focus groups conducted synchronously using online software that enabled video or phone discussion. Findings were based on qualitative observations of attendance and study team debriefing on topics of individual, social, technical, and logistical challenges encountered.

resultsA total of 41 transgender women from all six cities participated in seven online focus group discussions-five English and two Spanish. There was equal racial distribution of black/African American (14/41, 34%) and white (14/41, 34%) attendees, with 29% (12/41) identifying as Hispanic/Latina ethnicity. Overall, 29 of 70 (41%) eligible and scheduled transgender women failed to attend the focus group discussions. The most common reason for nonattendance was forgetting or having a scheduling conflict (16/29, 55%). A total of 14% (4/29) reported technical challenges associated with accessing the CMC focus group discussion. CMC focus group discussions were found to facilitate geographic diversity; allow participants to control anonymity and privacy (eg, use of pseudonyms and option to use video); ease scheduling by eliminating challenges related to travel to a data collection site; and offer flexibility to join via a variety of devices. Challenges encountered were related to overlapping conversations; variable audio quality in cases where Internet or cellular connection was poor; and distribution of incentives (eg, cash versus gift cards). As with all focus group discussions, establishment of ground rules and employing both a skilled facilitator and a notetaker who could troubleshoot technology issues were critical to the success of CMC focus group discussions.

conclusionsSynchronous CMC focus group discussions provide a secure opportunity to convene participants across geographic space with minimal time burden and without losing the standardized approach that is expected of focus group discussions. This method may provide an optimal alternative to engaging hard-to-reach participants in focus group discussions. Participants with limited technological literacy or inconsistent access to a phone and/or cellular data or service, as well as circumstances necessitating immediate cash incentives may, however, require additional support and accommodation when participating in CMC focus group discussions.

Indexed as

AdultCohort StudiesCommunicationComputersEducation, DistanceFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHIV InfectionsHumansMaleQualitative ResearchTransgender PersonsUnited Statesformative researchqualitative researchtechnologytransgender

Identifiers

PMID30924782
PMCPMC6460306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.