PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10181036

Focus groups, program evaluation and the mentally ill: a case study.

M E Rauktis·K Feidler·J Wood
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article uses a case example to describe how focus group interviews were utilized in evaluating mental health services for individuals with a serious and persistent mental illness. The method, questions, and recruitment process are summarized along with a description of the focus group interaction. Modifications of logistic procedures and moderator skills are also presented along with the limitations and benefits of using this method for the purpose of evaluation.

Explore related subjects

Focus GroupsHealth Services ResearchMental DisordersMental Health ServicesOrganizational Case StudiesPennsylvaniaProgram EvaluationJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M E Rauktis, K Feidler, J Wood. 1998. Focus groups, program evaluation and the mentally ill: a case study.. https://doi.org/10.1300/j045v10n02_06

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education.

Focus groups are now widely adopted in qualitative health and social research, and have been increasingly used as a data-collection technique in nursing research. The focus group is not a new method, but its uses and procedures have been considerably revised in recent years. The aim of this paper is to present an overview of the focus group as a research tool in social science literature, followed by a more considered discussion on the use of focus groups in contemporary critical social science. It draws on this work to illustrate the potential of focus groups to address some of the political issues in social research, in particular the balance of power between researcher and researched, and the empowerment of under-represented groups. Advantages of the method in connecting the researcher with group perspectives and experiences that may be unexplored by other methods of data collection are discussed, and the 'collective conscience' is put forward as an appropriate resource in data analysis. It argues that the application of focus-group techniques can build on experiences and principles of working with or participating in groups. Focus groups are particularly applicable to research in nurse education, for involving diverse stakeholders in curriculum evaluation and development, and in ongoing appraisals of the student's perceptions of their experience, for which universities have tended to rely on survey approaches and structured questionnaires. The article ends by drawing some conclusions from the health and social research literature to inform nursing education research using focus groups.

Focus Groups↗
PubMed2001

Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: incorporating reflexivity and relationality.

Some proponents of the grounded theory method appear to treat interview and participant observation data as though they mirror informants' realities. Others claim that grounded theory incorporates reflexivity. It is claimed in this article that the principal texts on grounded theory do not attend to the effects of interactions between researchers and participants in interview and participant observation contexts. Descriptions of the effects of interactions on interview data and attention to relationships between interviewers and interviewees are necessary for attending to the rigor of grounded theory findings. Therefore, it is argued that reflexivity and relationality, which are defined as attending to the effects of researcher-participant interactions on the construction of data and to power and trust relationships between researchers and participants, should be incorporated into grounded theory.

Focus Groups↗