Carol Devine Professor, Division of Nutritional Sciences TRIPLL

Focus Group “The explicit use of group interaction to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group.” (Morgan, 1988) 2

Key resources for presentation 3 Sage Publications, 1998 Kruger, R., Casey, M.A Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage

Why focus groups? Want opinions Use group dynamics Explore new topics Communication with new groups Many opinions Plan additional data collection Plan an intervention: reactions to messages, materials or strategies 4

When is a focus group not useful? Need consensus Charged or confidential topic Individual experiences needed Need to generalize 5

Example: Small Changes and Lasting Effects (SCALE) (NHBLI, P.I. Charlson) Purpose: Culturally tailor a weight loss intervention Methods: 6 focus groups (3 Spanish, 3 English) from 3 community sites in Harlem & Bronx Content: Response to dietary change strategies 6

7 Example: Images of a Healthy Worksite (NCI: P.I. Fernandez) Purpose: Develop a feasible and acceptable worksite intervention to prevent weight gain Methods: 15 in-depth interviews, 5 focus groups, and community mapping at 2 sites with 79 administrators, managers, workers, and food service personnel Content: What would work here? Devine C, Nelson J, Chin N, Dozier A, Fernandez D “Pizza is cheaper than salad:” assessing workers’ views for an environmental food intervention. Obesity. 15: S57-S68.

Example: Women, Weight and Cancer (NIFA, P.I. Devine) Purpose: How breast cancer survivors think about healthy eating, physical activity, body weight, and their relationships to cancer Develop a walking intervention with community cancer organizations Methods: 21 women in 3 focus groups & 15 interviews from 2 communities 8

Study Design Why are focus groups the right approach? How will the focus group findings be used? 9

Sampling Purposive/theoretical sampling Sample monitoring for characteristics of theoretical importance Theoretical saturation 10

Group characteristics At least 3-4 groups 5-8 people per group Homogeneous Use separate groups for dissimilar people (gender, ethnicity, age) Equal in power Unfamiliar with each other 11

Recruiting Criteria: whose opinions are desired? What would it take to get someone to come? Personal contact with participants Contact (2 weeks ahead) Invitation (1 week ahead) Reminder (1 day ahead) Incentives 12

Location Convenient for participants Permissive – promote sharing opinions Confidential Quiet Food Transportation Child care? 13

Staffing – at least 2 Moderator: like the participants Welcome, overview Ground rules Questions, probes Listen, neutral responses Facilitate participation by all members Assistant moderator Greet late comers Monitor recording equipment Take notes Handle consent and demographic forms Draw a diagram of participants 14

Tools Consents Demographic forms Name tents Questioning guide Digital tape recorders – 2! Others: Flip charts, visuals, educational materials, photographs 15

5-6 Open-ended Questions Easy open – go around the table First name, neighborhood, number of children, favorite food, etc. Introductory Q In the last 25 years the proportion of overweight and obese adults in the US has risen dramatically. What do you think are some of the factors that have contributed to this increase? Transition Q How do you see these factors getting played out here at work? Key Q What changes in your work place do you think would help workers maintain a healthy weight? How would people at work respond to changes like these? Final Q – Is there anything else you would like us to know?

Data Analysis How will findings be used? Type of analysis Transcript, Tape, or Note based Looking for: Words and meaning Context Consistency or Differences Intensity What was missing 17

Analysis Coding what type (by question or open) quality control Approaches Word processor Spread sheet Colored markers on transcripts Piles Software 18

Analytic Steps in One Study 1) Verbatim transcription and tape verification 2) Review transcripts, notes, and demographics by team 3) Peer review of each transcript 4) Develop initial coding scheme by open coding of emergent themes by 2 coders 5) Iterative revision of the codes as additional groups coded 6) Comparison of coding by corroborators 7) Conceptual model to represent the experience of participants 8) Interpret findings in the context of existing theory/empirical research 9) Peer debriefing with researchers with expertise in topic 10) Member check with participants 19

Your Questions and Comments 20