Observational studyHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Research in Partnership With Older People-Involvement in Conducting and Analysing Focus Groups.
Observational study in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionData collection and analysis in collaboration with co-researchers has rarely been described, and its impact on the research process and outcomes remains unknown. Thus, this study involved older co-researchers in the moderation and analysis of focus groups and describes process and outcomes.
methodsThe SeFallED project included collaboration with co-researchers in the moderation and analysis of focus group interviews. Three focus groups were co-moderated by an academic researcher and three by a co-researcher. The co-analysis was conducted in collaboration with two co-researchers for three transcripts. Research diaries were maintained throughout the process for reflection. These were supplemented by feedback from the focus group participants. Moderation and analysis were described with regard to the questions and derived categories.
resultsReflections on the process highlight both facilitators and challenges in involving co-researchers. A positive atmosphere and training for co-researchers can be beneficial, whereas the significant time requirements can be challenging. With regard to outcomes, our analysis showed that collaboration led to a greater focus on focus group participants' feelings and facilitated a more profound comprehension of their statements.
conclusionThe present study provides recommendations for the process of co-researcher involvement in conducting and analysing focus groups. Involving co-researchers requires a positive atmosphere, training and adequate time. Furthermore, our findings help to sensitise researchers to the potential impacts on research outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Three co-researchers collaborated in the moderation and analysis of the focus groups. All three co-researchers reviewed this paper. CLINICAL
trial registrationThe SeFallED project was registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00025949, Registration Date: 4 November 2021).
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.