Online Focus Group Discussions to Engage Stigmatized Populations in Qualitative Health Research
Lessons Learned
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7441908 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gifty Marley (0000-0002-0025-3062), Rayner Kay Jin Tan (0000-0002-9188-3368), Tong Wang (0000-0002-9483-0050), Chunyan Li (0000-0001-9388-1799), Margaret E Byrne, Dan Wu (0000-0003-0849-0297), Cheng Wang (0000-0002-4693-6424), Weiming Tang (0000-0002-9026-707X), Rohit Ramaswamy (0000-0003-3410-4441), Danyang Luo (0009-0001-1811-5709), Sean Sylvia (0000-0002-9508-247X), Sean S Sylvia, Joseph D Tucker (0000-0003-2804-1181, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Publication date | 2023-09-26 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Qualitative Methods (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1609-4069 • E-ISSN: 1609-4069 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/16094069231204767 |
| OpenAlex | W4387066710 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 41 |
Community participation in research involving stigmatized populations has been sub-optimal, and digital tools could potentially increase participation in qualitative research. This study aims to describe the implementation of an online chat-based FGD (Focus Group Discussion) with men who have sex with men (MSM) in China as part of formative research for the PIONEER project, determine the advantages and limitations associated with the approach, and assess the feasibility of deepening community participation in STI research. Participants were involved in four days of asynchronous FGDs on sexually transmitted diseases and answered questions about the online FGD method. Online FGDs allowed us to deepen participant engagement through bidirectional communication channels. Data from online FGDs directly informed recruitment strategies and community participation for a clinical trial. Overall, 63% (29/46) of men who had never participated in offline LGBTQ + activities joined online FGDs. Many participants (89%, 41/46) noted that online FGDs were more convenient, less socially awkward, and more anonymous than in-person qualitative research. We highlighted potential risks as well as mitigation strategies when using online FGDs. Online FGDs were feasible among this group of sexual minorities and may be particularly useful in many cities where stigma limits in-person research participation
Family medicine · Focus group · Formative assessment · Medical education · Men who have sex with men · Online community · Online discussion · Online research methods · Pedagogy · Political science · Qualitative research · Sociology · Stigma (botany · Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods · Medicine · Mobile Health and mHealth Applications · Participatory Visual Research Methods · Psychology
Let’s (not) Go Outside
Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions
Research co-design in health
Qualitative methods in implementation research
Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research
Non-disclosure of Sexual Orientation to Parents Associated with Sexual Risk Behaviors Among Gay and Bisexual MSM in China
In-Person Versus Online Focus Group Discussions
WeChat and civil society in China
Mosaics, Triangles, and DNA
Using WhatsApp for focus group discussions
Data Richness Trade-Offs Between Face-to-Face, Online Audiovisual, and Online Text-Only Focus Groups
Assessment of Stigma Towards Homosexuality in China
Using WhatsApp Focus Group Discussions for Qualitative Data Collection
Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance
Texting the waters
WhatsApp usage patterns and prediction of demographic characteristics without access to message content
The Social Contexts of Focus Groups
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |