CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 164Focus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsParticipatory Visual Research Methods

The practical, methodological and ethical dilemmas of conducting focus groups with vulnerable clients.

Open access
Owen, Sara·2001·Journal of Advanced Nursing
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.02030.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

AIM: This paper presents some of the practical, methodological and ethical dilemmas that were encountered in a study that used focus groups to elicit the views of women with serious and enduring mental health problems about the services they were receiving. FINDINGS: The dilemmas identified included the time and effort taken to gain access to the women, the role of the researcher as facilitator, communication and interaction in the focus group, accepting the women's reality, and the thin divide between research and therapy. CONCLUSION: The paper concludes with some recommendations for researchers who are planning to use focus groups to elicit the views of vulnerable clients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.02030.x

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Implementing codesign in psychiatric research settings can be challenging due to significant time and cost and ethical challenges with severely burdened and highly vulnerable patient groups.

    “Nevertheless, the implementation of codesign in psychiatric research settings can be challenging due to the significant time and cost involved (48), as well as the ethical challenges that arise when conducting qualitative research with severely burdened and highly vulnerable patient groups (49, 50).”

    From Developing a mechanism-based therapy for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychotic symptoms: an Intervention Mapping approach (2023) · cites this paper as [50]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Owen, S.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Owen, Sara
ORCID
Owen, Sara
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-12-15
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
652-658
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.02030.x
OpenAlex
W1967578323
Cited by
164
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
Keywords
focus groups, vulnerable clients, research ethics, qualitative research methodology
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Mental Disorders, Communication, Conflict, Psychological, Ethics, Nursing, Female, Humans, Job Description, Nurse-Patient Relations, Patient Advocacy, Planning Techniques, Research Personnel, Women, Nursing Methodology Research, Focus Groups, Needs Assessment

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