ArticleBMJ open2021
Conducting focus groups in neurodegenerative disease populations: ethical and methodological considerations.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of the first needs-based quality of life measure for individuals with manifest Huntington's disease.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Navigating Life With Parkinson's Disease: A Focus Group Study on Coping Strategies and Considerations for Self-Management Support.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Interventions facilitating the involvement of relatives of patients with acquired brain injury or malignant brain tumour: A scoping review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Article
- Rigorous Qualitative Research Involving Data Collected Remotely From People With Communication Disorders: Experience From a Telerehabilitation Trial.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2022Article
- Conversation Barriers and Strategies Used by People With Parkinson's and Their Partners to Support Conversation.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInvolvement of vulnerable populations in research is critical to inform the generalisability of evidence-based medicine to all groups of the population.
objectiveIn this communication, we reflect on our previous research, and that of other authors, to identify and explore key ethical and methodological considerations. DISCUSSION: Focus groups are a widely implemented qualitative methodology, but their use, particularly in vulnerable neurodegenerative disease populations, is not straightforward. Although the risk of harm is generally low in focus group research, neurodegenerative disease populations are particularly vulnerable to issues relating to comprehension and their capacity to consent. Physical and cognitive impairments may also affect social interactions among participants and therefore impact data collection and analyses.
conclusionWe offer a number of ethical and methodological recommendations to facilitate the processes of recruitment and data collection when conducting focus groups with neurodegenerative disease populations.
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.