Conducting Focus Groups — A Guide for First‐time Users

Tynan, Caroline; Drayton, Jennifer L.

doi:10.1108/eb045757

Cited by 45 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To encourage participants to speak freely the FGDs were conducted in neutral settings: empty primary school classrooms and community centre conference rooms. The FGD sessions lasted between 90 and 120 min [42]. The same trained female interviewer carried out both the IDIs and FGDs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding mistreatment during institutional delivery in Northeast Nigeria: a mixed-method study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundImproving quality of care including the clinical aspects and the experience of care has been advocated for improved coverage and better childbirth outcomes.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the quality of care relating to the prevalence and manifestations of mistreatment during institutional birth in Gombe State, northeast Nigeria, an area of low institutional delivery coverage.MethodsThe frequency of dimensions of mistreatment experienced by women delivering in 10 health facilities of Gombe State were quantitatively captured during exit interviews with 342 women in July–August 2017. Manifestations of mistreatment were qualitatively explored through in-depth interviews and focus groups with 63 women living in communities with high and low coverage of institutional deliveries.ResultsThe quantitative data showed that at least one dimension of mistreatment was reported by 66% (95% confidence interval (CI) 45–82%) of women exiting a health facility after delivery. Mistreatment related to health system conditions and constraints were reported in 50% (95% CI 31–70%) of deliveries. In the qualitative data women expressed frustration at being urged to deliver at the health facility only to be physically or verbally mistreated, blamed for poor birth outcomes, discriminated against because of their background, left to deliver without assistance or with inadequate support, travelling long distances to the facility only to find staff unavailable, or being charged unjustified amount of money for delivery.ConclusionsMistreatment during institutional delivery in Gombe State is highly prevalent and predominantly relates to mistreatment arising from both health system constraints as well as health worker behaviours, limiting efforts to increase coverage of institutional delivery. To address mistreatment during institutional births, strategies that emphasise a broader health systems approach, tackle multiple causes, integrate a detailed understanding of the local context and have buy-in from grassroots-level stakeholders are recommended.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding mistreatment during institutional delivery in Northeast Nigeria: a mixed-method study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following the considerations from Tynan and Drayto (1988) [34], Merton (1990) [35], and Krueger [36], two groups of nine components were made up, so that they could both guarantee the participation of all their components and assure a diversity of perspectives: FG (1) Corporate diplomacy researchers and promoters, who provided theoretical and practical perspectives; and FG (2) Corporate diplomacy executive actors, who provided perspectives from high MNCs and state-diplomacy representatives. The respondents were contacted directly, by phone or e-mail.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Diplomacy Strategy and Instruments; With a Discussion about “Corporate Diplomacy and Cyclical Dynamics of Open Innovation”

Egea

Parra-Meroño

Wandosell

2020

Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper delves into the manner in which some Multinational Corporations (MNCs) manage corporate diplomacy as a catalyst of their political, social, and cultural influence in foreign markets. Once the related literature is reviewed, the qualitative Focus Group technique is applied by creating two teams of nine business internationalization experts, chosen amongst university professors; representatives of institutions and organizations, such as Chambers of Commerce or embassies; MNCs’ executives and lobbyists; and high-level representatives of Spanish state diplomacy. This contribution verifies that corporate diplomacy is known and clearly distinguished from other similar functions within the company in Spain; nevertheless, it is admitted that, in the case of Spanish MNCs, the arrival of corporate diplomacy is delayed. Secondly, we present the four key instruments to exert influence and, in turn, the most necessary ones to implement corporate diplomacy strategies: networking with external stakeholders, competitive intelligence, corporate reputation, and lobbying actions. Additionally, this paper shows that some MNCs coexist with other types of diplomacy—e.g., state or political, public and commercial diplomacy, although most do not yet do so autonomously, especially the Spanish MNCs. However, MNCs foster the perception that they assume, in a certain way, the role of the nation-states. This paper’s contribution is to establish that the current cross-border relational framework requires corporations to develop a true foreign policy and acquire a diplomatic know-how to strategically manage their influence in the countries where they operate so that they can obtain a “social license to operate” and generate favorable business environments. Finally, a short discussion about possible connections between corporate diplomacy and cyclical dynamics of open innovation is included, where engagement of external stakeholders and culture understanding are the main points in common identified.

show abstract

“…Two focus group sessions took place with five participants from the sand fly biting study in each group (total n=10). The participant numbers were compatible with accepted methodology for focus groups 67,68 . The focus groups were recorded using digital audio with consent and each session lasted approximately 3 hours.…”

Section: Focus Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A clinical study to optimise a sand fly biting protocol for use in a controlled human infection model of cutaneous leishmaniasis (the FLYBITE study)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Leishmaniasis is a globally important yet neglected parasitic disease transmitted by phlebotomine sand flies. With new candidate vaccines in or near the clinic, a controlled human challenge model (CHIM) using natural sand fly challenge would provide a method for early evaluation of prophylactic efficacy. Methods: We evaluated the biting frequency and adverse effects resulting from exposure of human volunteers to bites of either Phlebotomus papatasi or P. duboscqi, two natural vectors of Leishmania major. 12 healthy participants were recruited (mean age 40.2 ± 11.8 years) with no history of significant travel to regions where L. major-transmitting sand flies are prevalent. Participants were assigned to either vector by 1:1 allocation and exposed to five female sand flies for 30 minutes in a custom biting chamber. Bite frequency was recorded to confirm a bloodmeal was taken. Participant responses and safety outcomes were monitored using a visual analogue scale (VAS), clinical examination, and blood biochemistry. Focus groups were subsequently conducted to explore participant acceptability. Results: All participants had at least one successful sand fly bite with none reporting any serious adverse events, with median VAS scores of 0-1/10 out to day 21 post-sand fly bite. Corresponding assessment of sand flies confirmed that for each participant at least 1/5 sand flies had successfully taken a bloodmeal (overall mean 3.67±1.03 bites per participant). There was no significant difference between P. papatasi and P. duboscqi in the number of bites resulting from 5 sand flies applied to human participants (3.3±0.81 vs 3.00±1.27 bites per participant; p=0.56). In the two focus groups (n=5 per group), themes relating to positive participant-reported experiences of being bitten and the overall study, were identified. Conclusions: These results validate a protocol for achieving successful sand fly bites in humans that is safe, well-tolerated and acceptable for participants. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03999970 (27/06/2019)

show abstract

Conducting Focus Groups — A Guide for First‐time Users

Cited by 45 publications

References 11 publications

Understanding mistreatment during institutional delivery in Northeast Nigeria: a mixed-method study

Understanding mistreatment during institutional delivery in Northeast Nigeria: a mixed-method study

Corporate Diplomacy Strategy and Instruments; With a Discussion about “Corporate Diplomacy and Cyclical Dynamics of Open Innovation”

A clinical study to optimise a sand fly biting protocol for use in a controlled human infection model of cutaneous leishmaniasis (the FLYBITE study)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About