BackgroundVirtual focus groups—such as online chat and video groups—are increasingly promoted as qualitative research tools. Theoretically, virtual groups offer several advantages, including lower cost, faster recruitment, greater geographic diversity, enrollment of hard-to-reach populations, and reduced participant burden. However, no study has compared virtual and in-person focus groups on these metrics.ObjectiveTo rigorously compare virtual and in-person focus groups on cost, recruitment, and participant logistics. We examined 3 focus group modes and instituted experimental controls to ensure a fair comparison.MethodsWe conducted 6 1-hour focus groups in August 2014 using in-person (n=2), live chat (n=2), and video (n=2) modes with individuals who had type 2 diabetes (n=48 enrolled, n=39 completed). In planning groups, we solicited bids from 6 virtual platform vendors and 4 recruitment firms. We then selected 1 platform or facility per mode and a single recruitment firm across all modes. To minimize bias, the recruitment firm employed different recruiters by mode who were blinded to recruitment efforts for other modes. We tracked enrollment during a 2-week period. A single moderator conducted all groups using the same guide, which addressed the use of technology to communicate with health care providers. We conducted the groups at the same times of day on Monday to Wednesday during a single week. At the end of each group, participants completed a short survey.ResultsVirtual focus groups offered minimal cost savings compared with in-person groups (US $2000 per chat group vs US $2576 per in-person group vs US $2,750 per video group). Although virtual groups did not incur travel costs, they often had higher management fees and miscellaneous expenses (eg, participant webcams). Recruitment timing did not differ by mode, but show rates were higher for in-person groups (94% [15/16] in-person vs 81% [13/16] video vs 69% [11/16] chat). Virtual group participants were more geographically diverse (but with significant clustering around major metropolitan areas) and more likely to be non-white, less educated, and less healthy. Internet usage was higher among virtual group participants, yet virtual groups still reached light Internet users. In terms of burden, chat groups were easiest to join and required the least preparation (chat = 13 minutes, video = 40 minutes, in-person = 78 minutes). Virtual group participants joined using laptop or desktop computers, and most virtual participants (82% [9/11] chat vs 62% [8/13] video) reported having no other people in their immediate vicinity.ConclusionsVirtual focus groups offer potential advantages for participant diversity and reaching less healthy populations. However, virtual groups do not appear to cost less or recruit participants faster than in-person groups. Further research on virtual group data quality and group dynamics is needed to fully understand their advantages and limitations.

HIV risk through injection appears to be low in these rural counties. However, nearly all study participants reported some form of sexual risk behavior that may increase transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Further research is warranted focusing on the nexus between substance abuse and risky sexual behaviors.

No abstract

Rates of heavy drinking are consistently higher among U.S. military personnel than among civilians, particularly among young male personnel. In addressing drinking in the military, more information is needed on contextual factors influencing drinking to better understand the conditions that lead to or facilitate drinking. Results from 15 focus groups conducted with enlisted personnel at 2 Navy and 2 Marine Corps installations as part of formative research for an alcohol abuse prevention trial are reported in this article. The study explored the "drinking climate" of each installation in terms of shared attitudes and recognized norms regarding alcohol use and installation personnel's general understanding of policies concerning alcohol consumption. Analysis revealed several contextual factors that add to our understanding of drinking behaviors.

In an effort to inform communication efforts to promote sexual health equity in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sought to explore African-Americans' perceptions of the sexually transmitted disease (STD) problem in their communities, reactions to racially comparative STD data and opinions about dissemination of such information. Semi-structured triads and individual interviews were conducted with African-American adults (N = 158) in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States. Most participants believed that STDs are a problem in their communities but were unaware of the extent to which STDs disproportionately affect African Americans. Once informed about racial differences in STD rates, participants commonly reacted with shock, fear and despair; a minority raised questions about the information's source and credibility. Most felt it was critical to get the information out to African-American communities as a 'wake-up call' to motivate change, though some raised concerns about its dissemination. Findings suggest that information about racial differences in STD rates must be strategically crafted and delivered through targeted channels to be acceptable to African Americans. So as not to further harm communities burdened by other social/health inequities, alternative (strength-based) approaches should be considered for motivating positive change.