The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research
Abstract
Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research Objective. To evaluate and critique reports in the nursing literature in the period 1990–1999 of the use of focus groups as a research method. Methods. The articles were identified by a computerized search of the CINAHL database and subjected to critical review. Findings. The result of the search was that very few articles were found that reported on a specific piece of research using the method. Methodological discussions were more common and these were sometimes at a somewhat superficial level without analysis or critique. The largest category of articles was concerned with service development projects. The research‐based articles were found to be relatively unsophisticated in their use of the method, in particular in relation to data analysis and social interaction within focus groups. Terms such as ‘content analysis’ and ‘grounded theory’ were used in nonrigorous ways and incompatibility between the underlying research approach and implementation of the method was identified in the cases of phenomenology and grounded theory. Whilst selection of the focus group method was often justified in terms of the benefits that participant interaction could yield, this interaction was rarely reported or discussed in the articles. One author proposed a scheme for analysing this type of interaction, and this is recommended to future researchers as a possible framework for interaction analysis. Conclusions. The article concludes by calling for more in‐depth consideration at the research planning stages of the underlying assumptions of methodological approaches that may be used to underpin focus group research and methods to be used to analyse and report the data generated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups.
Kitzinger, J. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 · Cited by 6,939
The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants
Kitzinger, J. (1994) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023 · Cited by 3,870
Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus group
Sim, J. (1998) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00692.x · Cited by 834
Cited by
The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014) · Oncology Nursing Forum · doi:10.1188/14.onf.545-547 · Cited by 3,915
Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations
Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.818 · Cited by 829
Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy
McLafferty, I. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x · Cited by 798
What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies
Carlsen, B., & Glenton, C. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-26 · Cited by 670
Living with conflicts-ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health care system
Kälvemark, S., Höglund, A. T., Hansson, M. G., Westerholm, P., & Arnetz, B. (2004) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00279-x · Cited by 624
Metadata
- Authors
- Webb, C., & Kevern, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-03-16
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 798-805
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W2103101481
- Cited by
- 495
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 35.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01720.x
- The paper
- Webb, C., & Kevern, J. (2001). Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01720.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.