PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10382456

Using focus group methodology in nursing.

R S Morrison·L Peoples
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The need to obtain quality data in a cost-efficient manner spawned an exploration of research methods. The value of focus group methodology for multiple roles in nursing became evident. METHOD: This article describes the purpose, process, and application of focus group methodology for nursing continuing education. RESULTS: Ideas for use of focus group methodology in nursing continuing education are suggested. CONCLUSION: Focus group methodology can enhance the work of nurses in continuing education roles.

Explore related subjects

Cost-Benefit AnalysisData CollectionEducation, Nursing, ContinuingFocus GroupsGroup ProcessesHumansNursing Education ResearchNursing Methodology ResearchJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R S Morrison, L Peoples. Using focus group methodology in nursing.. https://doi.org/10.3928/0022-0124-19990301-06

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Low-cost on-the-job peer training of nurses improved immunization coverage in Indonesia.

In Indonesia responsibility for immunizations is placed on local government health centres and on the nurses who provide the immunizations at each centre. An on-the-job peer training programme for these nurses, which was designed to improve the immunization performance of poorly performing health centres in terms of coverage and practice in Maluku province, was evaluated. Experienced immunization nurses were sent to health centres where nurses were inexperienced or performing poorly; the experienced nurses spent 1-2 weeks providing on-the-job training for the less experienced ones. An evaluation of the 13 centres that participated in the programme and the 95 that did not found that the programme increased both immunization coverage and the quality of practice. Coverage of diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT), polio, and measles vaccinations rose by about 39% in all 13 participating centres when compared with non-participating centres, and by about 54% in the 11 centres that had a functioning transportation system during the year after training. These results reflect increases in the actual number of doses given and improvements in the accuracy of reports. Potential threats to the study's validity were examined and found not to be significant. The out-of-pocket cost of the training programme was about US$ 53 per trainee or about US$ 0.05 per additional vaccine reported to have been given. The marginal cost per additional fully immunized child was estimated to be US$ 0.50.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2001

Cost-effectiveness of syringe exchange as an HIV prevention strategy.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of New York State-approved syringe exchange programs (SEPs) and estimate the cost-saving potential of these programs. DESIGN AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis used cost and process data provided by seven SEPs for the calendar year 1996 or the most recent 12-month period available at the time of the study. Alternative estimates of the number of HIV infections prevented were calculated using published data and a simplified circulation model. HIV treatment costs were taken from the literature. RESULTS: A cost-effectiveness ratio of $20,947 per HIV infection averted was calculated based on an estimated 87 HIV infections averted across the seven programs and total program costs of $1.82 million (all amounts given in US dollars). Sensitivity analyses were also performed. Using imputed costs for donated services and estimates of lifetime costs to treat an HIV infection, syringe exchange was demonstrated to be a cost-saving strategy from a societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: This research demonstrates that syringe exchange is a cost-effective and cost-saving strategy for reducing HIV transmission.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2001

Costeffectiveness of diagnostic tests.

We review the principles underlying cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic tests and procedures. We use two clinical examples, diagnostic testing for early multiple sclerosis and for Helicobacter pylori to illustrate the methods of analysis and to show how the results can be useful for physicians or payers of health services in making decisions about provision and use of diagnostic services. Economic assessments of diagnostic tests are inherently more difficult than assessments of therapeutic interventions, mainly because of uncertainty about the relation between diagnosis and end results (outcomes) of care. Nonetheless, because of the increasing importance of diagnostic technology in medicine and healthcare, only with such assessments will the most value be gained from restricted medical resources.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗