» Articles » PMID: 31588913

Use of Web Conferencing Technology for Conducting Online Focus Groups Among Young People With Lived Experience of Suicidal Thoughts: Mixed Methods Research

Overview
Date 2019 Oct 8
PMID 31588913
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: There is an increasing interest in engaging people with lived experience in suicide prevention research. However, young people with suicidal thoughts have been described as a "hard-to-include" population due to time, distance, stigma, and social barriers.

Objective: This study aims to investigate whether conducting synchronous Web conferencing technology-based online focus groups (W-OFGs) is a feasible method to engage young people with lived experience of suicidal thoughts in suicide prevention research.

Methods: Young people aged between 16 and 25 years and living in Sydney, Australia, were recruited through flyers, emails, and social media advertisements. The W-OFGs were established using a Web conferencing technology called GoToMeeting. Participants' response rate, attendance, and feedback of the W-OFGs were analyzed to determine whether the W-OFG system is feasible for suicide prevention research. Researchers' reflections about how to effectively implement the W-OFGs were also reported as part of the results.

Results: In the pre-W-OFG survey, 39 (97.5%) young people (n=40) chose to attend the online focus group. Among the 22 participants who responded to the W-OFG invitations, 15 confirmed that they would attend the W-OFGs, of which 11 participants attended the W-OFGs. Feedback collected from the participants in the W-OFG and the post-W-OFG survey suggested that online focus groups are acceptable to young people in suicide prevention research. Considerations for selecting the Web conferencing platform, conducting the mock W-OFGs, implementing the risk management procedure, inviting participants to the W-OFGs, and hosting and moderating the W-OFGs as well as a few potential ethical and pragmatic challenges in using this method are discussed in this study.

Conclusions: The Web conferencing technology provides a feasible replacement for conventional methods, particularly for qualitative research involving vulnerable populations and stigmatized topics including suicide prevention. Our results indicate that this modality is an optimal alternative to engage young people in the focus group discussion. Future studies should compare the data collected from the Web conferencing technology and conventional face-to-face methods in suicide prevention research to determine if these two methods are equivalent in data quality from a quantitative approach.

Citing Articles

Cultivating participatory processes in self-harm app development: A case-study and working methodology.

Babbage C, Lockwood J, Roberts L, Mendes J, Greenhalgh C, Willingham L JCPP Adv. 2024; 4(4):e12295.

PMID: 39734924 PMC: 11669782. DOI: 10.1002/jcv2.12295.


Adolescent Perception of Stiffness After Spinal Fusion Surgery.

Lindsay S, Thompson A, Hummel J, Halsey M, Yang S J Patient Exp. 2024; 11:23743735241282937.

PMID: 39386420 PMC: 11462581. DOI: 10.1177/23743735241282937.


Adaptations to a patient navigation program for follow-up colonoscopy in rural primary care practices.

Thompson J, Rivelli J, Schneider J, Kenzie E, Myers E, Coury J J Eval Clin Pract. 2024; 30(7):1457-1466.

PMID: 38935862 PMC: 11424257. DOI: 10.1111/jep.14068.


Engaging with Rural Communities for Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Using Modified Boot Camp Translation.

Coury J, Coronado G, Myers E, Patzel M, Thompson J, Whidden-Rivera C Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2024; 18(1):47-59.

PMID: 38661826 PMC: 11047025.


Stakeholder perspectives of family interventions for schizophrenia in Indonesia: a qualitative study.

Susanti H, Brooks H, Keliat B, Bradshaw T, Wulandari D, Fadilah R BMC Psychiatry. 2024; 24(1):59.

PMID: 38254095 PMC: 10804701. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-024-05504-w.


References
1.
Tates K, Zwaanswijk M, Otten R, van Dulmen S, Hoogerbrugge P, Kamps W . Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: examples from paediatric oncology. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009; 9:15. PMC: 2653071. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-15. View

2.
Douglas E, Hines D, Dixon L, Celi E, Lysova A . Using Technology to Conduct Focus Groups With a Hard-to-Reach Population: A Methodological Approach Concerning Male Victims of Partner Abuse in Four English-Speaking Countries. J Interpers Violence. 2018; 36(9-10):NP5257-NP5280. DOI: 10.1177/0886260518799459. View

3.
Sharkey S, Jones R, Smithson J, Hewis E, Emmens T, Ford T . Ethical practice in internet research involving vulnerable people: lessons from a self-harm discussion forum study (SharpTalk). J Med Ethics. 2011; 37(12):752-8. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100080. View

4.
Rupert D, Poehlman J, Hayes J, Ray S, Moultrie R . Virtual Versus In-Person Focus Groups: Comparison of Costs, Recruitment, and Participant Logistics. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(3):e80. PMC: 5382259. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6980. View

5.
Tuttas C . Lessons learned using Web conference technology for online focus group interviews. Qual Health Res. 2014; 25(1):122-33. DOI: 10.1177/1049732314549602. View