This paper introduces focus group methodology, gives advice on group composition, running the groups, and analysing the results. Focus groups have advantages for researchers in the field of health and medicine: they do not discriminate against people who cannot read or write and they can encourage participation from people reluctant to be interviewed on their own or who feel they have nothing to say.

What are focus groups? How are tbey distinct from ordinary group discussions and wbat use are tbey anyway? Tbis article introduces focus group metbodology, explores ways of conducting sucb groups and examines wbat tbis tecbnique of data collection can offer researcbers in general and medical sociologists in particular. It concentrates on tbe one feature wbicb inevitably distinguisbes focus groups from one-to-one interviews or questionnaires -namely the interaction between research participants -and argues for tbe overt exploration and exploitation of sucb interaction in tbe researcb process.

No abstract

A prospective study of 825 women booked for delivery in six hospitals in southeastern England was conducted to determine their expectations of childbirth. Women completed three questionnaires, two before the birth and one six weeks after. Questions covered both objective and subjective aspects of birth, and gave particular attention to control, its importance and its relevance to psychological outcomes. Four different indices of psychological outcome were considered: fulfillment, satisfaction, emotional well-being, and the words that women used to describe their babies, which were shown to be related to different patterns of independent variables and of intrapartum events. Our results did not support popular stereotypes: high expectations were not found to be bad for women, although low expectations often were. Information and feeling in control were consistently associated with positive psychological outcomes.

No abstract

Anonymising qualitative research data can be challenging, especially in highly sensitive contexts such as catastrophic brain injury and end-of-life decision-making. Using examples from in-depth interviews with family members of people in vegetative and minimally conscious states, this article discusses the issues we faced in trying to maximise participant anonymity alongside maintaining the integrity of our data. We discuss how we developed elaborate, context-sensitive strategies to try to preserve the richness of the interview material wherever possible while also protecting participants. This discussion of the practical and ethical details of anonymising is designed to add to the largely theoretical literature on this topic and to be of illustrative use to other researchers confronting similar dilemmas.

Seventy six senior academics from 11 countries invite The BMJ’s editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority. They challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly, and pluralist approach to research that aligns with its stated mission

No abstract