PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15107173

Interviewing the moderator: an ancillary method to focus groups.

Janine Morgall Traulsen·Anna Birna Almarsdóttir·Ingunn Björnsdóttir
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

There has been an upsurge of academic interest in using focus groups (FGs) as a main or stand-alone qualitative method. In this article, the authors introduce a recently developed ancillary method to FGs called interviewing the moderator. The method is employed immediately after an FG and consists of a one-on-one interview with the FG moderator by another member of the research team. The authors argue, with reference to a specific study, that interviewing the moderator adds a new and valuable dimension to group interviews used in research. They describe how this method came about and provide a concrete example of its use in a recently completed research project. They discuss several advantages of the interview, among them that it provides information about group interaction and participant behavior, and furnishes additional data on what is discussed when the tape recorder is turned off.

Explore related subjects

Focus GroupsGroup ProcessesHumansIcelandResearch DesignJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Janine Morgall Traulsen, Anna Birna Almarsdóttir, Ingunn Björnsdóttir. 2004. Interviewing the moderator: an ancillary method to focus groups.. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304263680

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Visiting hours policies in New England intensive care units: strategies for improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Dying patients often feel isolated and alone, and restricted visiting hours in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to increase anxiety and dissatisfaction in both critically ill patients and their families. Unrestricted visiting has been identified as a top-ten need by families of patients in the ICU. Because emotional distress experienced by patients and families may persist well beyond the ICU stay, an open visiting policy, by meeting the needs of patients and families, may improve the quality of end-of-life care in the ICU. This two-part study included a survey to determine the visiting hours policies of New England-area hospital ICUs, and nursing focus groups to describe challenges and barriers that nursing staff working in an open ICU have experienced and to provide solutions that will facilitate implementation of an open visiting hours policy. DESIGN: Two-part study: survey and focus groups. SETTING: ICUs in New England and one medical ICU in a tertiary care hospital. SUBJECTS: Registered nurses employed in medical ICUs. INTERVENTIONS: Adult ICUs in the six New England states were located using a library listing of all regional hospitals. A telephone questionnaire interview was used to ascertain visiting hours policies in each ICU. Six focus-group sessions were conducted with nursing staff who work in an urban, northeastern ICU with 8 yrs of experience with an unrestricted visiting hours policy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 171 hospitals completed the questionnaire (96%). From all ICUs surveyed, 62 (32%) had unrestricted, open visiting hours. Out of these, 57 (92%) were medical ICUs or mixed medical/surgical ICUs. Nursing staff identified three major areas of concern with an open visiting hours policy: space, conflict, and burden. Strategies for resolution that are either employed or advocated by nursing staff are described. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ICUs in New England have restricted visiting hours. Only one third of ICUs have open visiting policies. Nursing concerns with an unrestricted ICU were identified and solutions were offered that may provide guidance for other ICUs considering adopting an open visiting hours policy.

Focus Groups↗
PubMed2006

Place and provision: mapping mental health advocacy services in London.

The National Health Service (NHS) Executive for London carried out an investigation in 2002 as part of their wider mental health strategy to establish whether existing mental health advocacy provision in the city was meeting need. The project took a two-part approach, with an emphasis on, (a) mapping the provision of advocacy services and, (b) cartographic mapping of service location and catchments. Data were collected through a detailed questionnaire with service providers in collaboration with the Greater London Mental Health Advocacy Network (GLMHAN) and additional health and government sources. The service mapping identified some key statistics on funding, caseloads and models of service provision with an additional emphasis on coverage, capacity, and funding stability. The questionnaire was augmented by interviews and focus groups with commissioners, service providers and service users and identified differing perspectives and problems, which informed the different perspectives of each of these groups. The cartographic mapping exercise demonstrated a spatially-even provision of mental health advocacy services across the city with each borough being served by at least one local service as well as by London wide specialist schemes. However, at local level, no one borough had the full range of specialist provision to match local demographic need. Ultimately the research assisted the Advisory Group in providing commissioning agencies with clear information on the current status of city-wide mental health advocacy services, and on gaps in existing advocacy provision alongside previously unconsidered geographical and service dimensions of that provision.

Focus Groups↗
PubMed2006

Health system barriers to strengthening vaccine-preventable disease surveillance and response in the context of decentralization: evidence from Georgia.

BACKGROUND: A critical challenge in the health sector in developing countries is to ensure the quality and effectiveness of surveillance and public health response in an environment of decentralization. In Georgia, a country where there has been extensive decentralization of public health responsibilities over the last decade, an intervention was recently piloted to strengthen district-level local vaccine-preventable disease surveillance and response activities through improved capacity to analyze and use routinely collected data. The purpose of the study is 1) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention on motivation and perceived capacity to analyze and use information at the district-level, and 2) to assess the role that individual- and system-level factors play in influencing the effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS: A pre-post quasi-experimental research design is used for the quantitative evaluation. Data come from a baseline and two follow-up surveys of district-level health staff in 12 intervention and 3 control Center of Public Health (CPH) offices. These data were supplemented by record reviews in CPH offices as well as focus group discussions among CPH and health facility staff. RESULTS: The results of the study suggest that a number of expected improvements in perceived data availability and analysis occurred following the implementation of the intervention package, and that these improvements in analysis could be attributable to the intervention package. However, the study results also suggest that there exist several health systems barriers that constrained the effectiveness of the intervention in influencing the availability of data, analysis and response. CONCLUSION: To strengthen surveillance and response systems in Georgia, as well as in other countries, donor, governments, and other stakeholders should consider how health systems factors influence investments to improve the availability of data, analysis, and response. Linking the intervention to broader health sector reforms in management processes and organizational culture will be critical to ensure that efforts designed to promote evidence-based decision-making are successful, especially as they are scaled up to the national level.

Focus Groups↗