This paper introduces focus group methodology and discusses its relevance to those researching health care provision. As a qualitative data collection technique, the focus group has advantages over other qualitative methods, such as the in-depth interview and nominal group technique. This paper highlights these advantages after providing guidelines on group composition, the management of group discussion and the process of analysing results.
Background:Spiritual distress is prevalent in advanced disease, but often neglected, resulting in unnecessary suffering. Evidence to inform spiritual care practices in palliative care is limited.Aim:To explore spiritual care needs, experiences, preferences and research priorities in an international sample of patients with life-limiting disease and family caregivers.Design:Focus group study.Setting/participants:Separate patient and caregiver focus groups were conducted at 11 sites in South Africa, Kenya, South Korea, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland and Poland. Discussions were transcribed, translated into English and analysed thematically.Results:A total of 74 patients participated: median age 62 years; 53 had cancer; 48 were women. In total, 71 caregivers participated: median age 61 years; 56 were women. Two-thirds of participants were Christian. Five themes are described: patients’ and caregivers’ spiritual concerns, understanding of spirituality and its role in illness, views and experiences of spiritual care, preferences regarding spiritual care, and research priorities. Participants reported wide-ranging spiritual concerns spanning existential, psychological, religious and social domains. Spirituality supported coping, but could also result in framing illness as punishment. Participants emphasised the need for staff competence in spiritual care. Spiritual care was reportedly lacking, primarily due to staff members’ de-prioritisation and lack of time. Patients’ research priorities included understanding the qualities of human connectedness and fostering these skills in staff. Caregivers’ priorities included staff training, assessment, studying impact, and caregiver’s spiritual care needs.Conclusion:To meet patient and caregiver preferences, healthcare providers should be able to address their spiritual concerns. Findings should inform patient- and caregiver-centred spiritual care provision, education and research.
SummarySubcostal transversus abdominis plane (TAP) catheters have been reported to be an effective method of providing analgesia after upper abdominal surgery. We compared their analgesic efficacy with that of epidural analgesia after major upper abdominal surgery in a randomised controlled trial. Adult patients undergoing elective open hepatobiliary or renal surgery were randomly allocated to receive subcostal TAP catheters (n = 29) or epidural analgesia (n = 33), in addition to a standard postoperative analgesic regimen comprising of regular paracetamol and tramadol as required. The TAP group patients received bilateral subcostal TAP catheters and 1 mg.kg−1 bupivacaine 0.375% bilaterally every 8 h. The epidural group patients received an infusion of bupivacaine 0.125% with fentanyl 2 μg.ml−1. The primary outcome measure was visual analogue pain scores during coughing at 8, 24, 48 and 72 h after surgery. We found no significant differences in median (IQR [range]) visual analogue scores during coughing at 8 h between the TAP group (4.0 (2.3–6.0 [0–7.5])) and epidural group (4.0 (2.5–5.3) [0–8.5])) and at 72 h (2.0 (0.8–4.0 [0–5]) and 2.5 (1.0–5.0 [0–6]), respectively). Tramadol consumption was significantly greater in the TAP group (p = 0.002). Subcostal TAP catheter boluses may be an effective alternative to epidural infusions for providing postoperative analgesia after upper abdominal surgery.
Most mental health researchers rely upon quantitative methods of data collection. Whilst such methods are commonly seen as reliable, qualitative methods are often seen as more valid. Despite the value of qualitative methods of data collection, however, many researchers denigrate their use. Qualitative research is often viewed as lacking in scientific rigour. This paper explores the use of the focus group as a qualitative instrument to enhance the validity of existing questionnaires for mental health service users and providers. Between July and August 1995 four focus groups were conducted in Exeter and Taunton among service users (with severe or long-term mental health problems) and providers (community psychiatric nurses, social workers and occupational therapists). It is demonstrated that focus groups enhance the validity of existing questionnaires by highlighting those concerns held by users and providers that would otherwise have been neglected.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.