ArticleJournal of patient experience2021
Focus Group Discussion as a Tool to Assess Patient-Based Outcomes, Practical Tips for Conducting Focus Group Discussion for Medical Students-Learning With an Example.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 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.
- The Process of Adapting to Altered Bowel Function in Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Grounded Theory Study.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- Patient engagement for quality improvement and knowledge translation in paediatric orthopaedic care - a patient partner led initiative.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Challenges in strengthening multi-sectoral action for optimum preparedness and response for public health emergencies in Sri Lanka.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Prevalence and predictors of modern contraceptive method utilization among married couples in the pastoralist communities of Fentale district, Eastern Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The experiences of psychiatric patients, their caregivers and companions in upholding patient dignity during hospitalization: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-based outcomes (patient-reported outcomes) of any intervention can change according to factors like age, gender, region, culture, education, and socioeconomic status. Most of the available outcome measuring tools have a surgeon-related bias. Focus group discussion (FGD) is a simple and effective way to assess the outcome of an intervention. In FGD, people from similar backgrounds and experiences discuss a specific topic of interest. Our objective is to discuss the problems of common outcome measuring tools for patient satisfaction and to understand the method of conducting an FGD. We have set our own published article on patient-based outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) as an example for explaining the method of conducting an FGD. The planning, advantages, disadvantages, practicalities, and problems of conducting an FGD are explained. In conclusion, many of the tools used for assessing patient satisfaction is surgeon-centered. Focus group discussion is simple, cost-effective, requiring a small number of participants, and can be completed in a short period. It is an effective tool for assessing patient-based outcomes in TKA.
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.