Online Focus Group Discussions to Engage Stigmatized Populations in Qualitative Health Research: Lessons Learned-Reference-Cited by-全球学者库

Online Focus Group Discussions to Engage Stigmatized Populations in Qualitative Health Research: Lessons Learned

Published:2023-01 Issue: Volume:22 Page:
ISSN:1609-4069
Container-title:International Journal of Qualitative Methods
language:en
Short-container-title:International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Author:

Marley Gifty¹^ORCID,Kay Jin Tan Rayner¹,Wang Tong¹,Li Chunyan²,Byrne Margaret E.²,Wu Dan³,Wang Cheng⁴,Tang Weiming⁵,Ramaswamy Rohit⁶,Luo Danyang¹,Sylvia Sean S.⁵,Tucker Joseph D.³⁵

Affiliation:

1. University of North Carolina Project-China, Guangzhou, China

2. Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

3. Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

4. Dermatology Hospital of the Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

5. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel-Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

6. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Abstract

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.

Funder

National Institutes of Health

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Education

Link

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/16094069231204767

Reference44 articles.

1. Data Richness Trade-Offs Between Face-to-Face, Online Audiovisual, and Online Text-Only Focus Groups

2. Mosaics, Triangles, and DNA

3. A Critical Comparison of Offline Focus Groups, Online Focus Groups and E-Delphi

4. Texting the waters: An assessment of focus groups conducted via the WhatsApp smartphone messaging application

5. Internalized Sexual Minority Stigma is Associated With HIV Testing Behavior Among Chinese Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Cross-Sectional Study