» Articles » PMID: 35979254

Feasibility of Virtual Focus Groups in Program Impact Evaluation

Overview
Publisher Sage Publications
Date 2022 Aug 18
PMID 35979254
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Focus groups are often used for qualitative investigations. We adapted a published focus group method for evaluating impact of an organizational intervention for virtual delivery using video conferencing. The method entailed convening small groups of three to five participants for a 2-hour facilitated workshop. We delivered the virtual workshops, adding qualitative evaluation with researchers and participants, to assess the effectiveness of the protocol. We address the questions of how to structure the data collection procedures; whether virtual delivery permits cross participant interactions about a studied intervention; and how easy and comfortable the experience was for participants. Participants were university faculty members who were the focus of an institutional diversity program. The results indicated that the virtually delivered focus group workshop could be successfully implemented with strong fidelity to the original protocol to achieve the workshop goals. The workshops generated rich data about the impacts of the institutional program as well as other events and conditions in the working environment that were relevant to consider along with the observed program outcomes. A well-planned virtual focus group protocol is a valuable tool to engage intervention stakeholders for research and evaluation from a distance. Video conferencing is especially useful during the current COVID-19 pandemic, but also whenever geography separates researchers and evaluators from program stakeholders. Careful planning of privacy measures for a secure online environment and procedures for structured facilitation of group dialogue are critical for success, as in any focus group. This article addresses a gap in the literature on feasibility and methodology for using video conference technology to conduct qualitative data collection with groups.

Citing Articles

A Protocol to Assess Contextual Factors During Program Impact Evaluation: A Case Study of a STEM Gender Equity Intervention in Higher Education.

Nobrega S, Edwards K, El Ghaziri M, Giacobbe L, Rice S, Punnett L Am J Eval. 2024; 45(4).

PMID: 39664915 PMC: 11633285. DOI: 10.1177/10982140231152281.


Strategies to optimise the health equity impact of digital pain self-reporting tools: a series of multi-stakeholder focus groups.

Ali S, Gambin A, Chadwick H, Dixon W, Crawford A, van der Veer S Int J Equity Health. 2024; 23(1):233.

PMID: 39529006 PMC: 11555918. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-024-02299-w.


Barriers to primary care among immigrants and refugees in Peterborough, Ontario: a qualitative study of provider perspectives.

Sundareswaran M, Martignetti L, Purkey E BMC Prim Care. 2024; 25(1):199.

PMID: 38840096 PMC: 11151623. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-024-02453-x.


Effective factors in planning, implementation, and management of educational program evaluation in medical sciences: A practical guide.

Salajegheh M J Educ Health Promot. 2024; 13:126.

PMID: 38784266 PMC: 11114481. DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_308_23.


Stakeholders' Perspective on the Key Features of Printed Educational Resources to Improve the Quality of Clinical Communication.

Gonella S, Di Giulio P, Brofferio L, Riva-Rovedda F, Cotogni P, Dimonte V Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(3).

PMID: 38338287 PMC: 10855175. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12030398.


References
1.
Edwards K, Winkel J . A method for effect modifier assessment (EMA) in ergonomic intervention research. Appl Ergon. 2018; 72:113-120. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.05.007. View

2.
Rowe M, Rosenheck R, Stern E, Bellamy C . Video conferencing technology in research on schizophrenia: a qualitative study of site research staff. Psychiatry. 2014; 77(1):98-102. DOI: 10.1521/psyc.2014.77.1.98. View

3.
Matthews K, Baird M, Duchesne G . Using Online Meeting Software to Facilitate Geographically Dispersed Focus Groups for Health Workforce Research. Qual Health Res. 2018; 28(10):1621-1628. DOI: 10.1177/1049732318782167. View

4.
Novick G . Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research?. Res Nurs Health. 2008; 31(4):391-8. PMC: 3238794. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20259. View

5.
McLafferty I . Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. J Adv Nurs. 2004; 48(2):187-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x. View