ArticleEvaluation (London, England : 1995)2022
Conducting focus groups in realist evaluation.
Article in Evaluation (London, England : 1995), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Realist Collaborative Evaluation of a Work Disability Prevention Program for Breast Cancer Survivors: Protocol for a RECOVA-FASTRACS Realist Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- How does a video feedback intervention work for people with dementia and distress behaviour living in a nursing home, for whom and under which circumstances? A realist interview study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Qualitative investigation of academic routines and mental health among medical students following coronavirus vaccination.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- We move together: a realist evaluation of the Safe Motherhood Action Groups in Eastern Province, Zambia.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Establishing trust through home visits during pregnancy: a realist evaluation of a Danish breastfeeding support intervention.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Balancing realist review outputs with the needs of policymakers and practitioners.Health policy and planning · 2025Article
- A preventive integrated eHealth approach for individuals with a low socioeconomic position: protocol for a realist evaluation.BMC public health · 2024Article
- How Do Adolescent Smoking Prevention Interventions Work in Different Contextual Settings? A Qualitative Comparative Study Between the UK and Colombia.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Investigating the Implementation of Community-Based Stroke Telerehabilitation in England; A Realist Synthesis Study Protocol.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Enhanced or hindered research benefits? A realist review of community engagement and participatory research practices for non-communicable disease prevention in low- and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- How do stroke early supported discharge services achieve intensive and responsive service provision? Findings from a realist evaluation study (WISE).BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Kailo: a systemic approach to addressing the social determinants of young people's mental health and wellbeing at the local level.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- The Impact of Ex-Post Legislative Evaluations in Healthcare: A Mixed Methods Realist Evaluation Study Protocol for Conducting Case Studies.International journal of qualitative methods · 2023Article
- 'To Know That You Are a Link in the Chain': A Realist Evaluation to Explore How Digital, Intensive, Parent-Implemented Interventions Work for Children With Speech Sound Disorder, Why, and for Whom.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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Focus groups are valuable tools for evaluators to help stakeholders to clarify programme theories. In 1987, R.K. Merton, often attributed with the birth of focus groups, wrote about how these were 'being mercilessly misused'. In the 1940s, his team had conceived focus groups as tools for developing middle-range theory, but through their astonishing success focus groups have metamorphosed and are often an 'unchallenged' choice in many evaluation approaches, while their practice seems to provide a philosophically diverse picture. This article examines what knowledge focus group data generate, and how they support theory development. It starts with an overview of the history of focus groups, establishing a relationship between their emergence as a data collection method and the evaluation profession. Practical lessons for conducting groups in realist evaluation are suggested, while exploring how qualitative data can support programme and middle-range theory development using the example of realist evaluation.
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.