ArticleJMIR research protocols2025
Implementation of Virtual Focus Groups as an Effective Strategy in Qualitative Research to Engage With Undersupported Communities: Protocol for Virtual Focus Groups.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Risk assessment reasoning and decision-making by ambulance professionals in patients with a transient loss of consciousness: a qualitative study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Qualitative research offers a valuable lens for understanding human experiences, behaviors, and social contexts, drawing upon communication, social interaction, and sociological perspectives. Focus groups are a key method within qualitative research for exploring these complex topics. While traditional focus groups offer valuable insights into group dynamics and shared perspectives, they can be limited by logistical challenges, such as geographic constraints and participant availability. To mitigate these issues, virtual modalities have emerged as a viable alternative, offering greater flexibility and accessibility for diverse populations. However, they also highlight persistent challenges, such as managing group dynamics in online settings and ensuring participant engagement and privacy concerns. Our protocol considers these issues and implements strategies, such as cofacilitators, more engaged research assistants, and the use of important security measures (participant name obfuscation, sharing links only on the day of the session, and password protection) as a way to overcome said issues. Objective: Expanding the methods for data collection in qualitative research is essential for advancing health differences research in hard-to-reach populations and public health emergencies. In this paper, we aim to describe our experience when implementing an adapted protocol for conducting virtual focus groups, the barriers encountered, and how we obtained a participation rate of 86% (63/73) compared to 55% (40/73) when done in person. Methods: To achieve this, we adapted and implemented a focus group protocol that approaches undersupported populations (social vulnerability index ≥0.45) who face challenges participating in traditional focus groups and addresses reported barriers in scientific literature using virtual focus groups. Our protocol was implemented in an exploratory qualitative study conducted from 2020 to 2021 to understand the community's health needs in southern Puerto Rico. This protocol ensures participant and research team interactions in circumstances that require it, including pandemics, geographically displaced populations, and patients who are bedridden. After evaluating the practical and ethical considerations, our research team established this new protocol for collecting qualitative data in a virtual focus group environment and promoting the inclusion of groups experiencing health differences. Results: As a result, we collected quality data and found added benefits. We obtained a participation rate of 86% (63/73) compared to 55% (40/73) when done in person. Our findings also reveal further benefits that could impact groups that generally do not have the chance to participate in focus groups. Conclusions: This approach to focus groups could aid researchers who wish to study these hard-to-reach participants and support qualitative health differences research.
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.