Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 580

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Making sense of focus groups

Barbour, Rosaline S·2005·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context This paper provides an overview of the contribution of medical education research which has employed focus group methodology to evaluate both undergraduate education and continuing professional development. Practicalities and Problems It also examines current debates about the ethics and practicalities involved in conducting focus group research. It gives guidance as to how to go about designing and planning focus group studies, highlighting common misconceptions and pitfalls, emphasising that most problems stem from researchers ignoring the central assumptions which underpin the qualitative research endeavour. Presenting and Developing Focus Group Research Particular attention is paid to analysis and presentation of focus group work and the uses to which such information is put. Finally, it speculates about the future of focus group research in general and research in medical education in particular.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.x

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 52 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Murphy B, 1992, Focus groups in health research, Health Prom J Aust, 2, 37
  2. 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1993.tb137633.x · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1993.tb137633.x
  3. 10.1097/00001888-200006000-00024 · doi:10.1097/00001888-200006000-00024
  4. Stanley N, 2003, Child Protection and Mental Health Services: Interprofessional Responses to the Needs of Mothers
  5. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00288.x · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00288.x
  6. NHS Management Executive., 1992, Local Voices: the Views of Local People in Purchasing for Health
  7. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01137.x · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01137.x
  8. 10.1097/00001888-200206000-00015 · doi:10.1097/00001888-200206000-00015
  9. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01464.x · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01464.x
  10. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00685.x · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00685.x
  11. Morgan DL, 1997, Focus Group Kit
  12. Barbour RS, Producing Data Using Focus Groups

Cited by

See all 580

Metadata

Authors
Barbour, R. S.
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06-09
Volume
39
Issue
7
Pages
742-750
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.x
OpenAlex
W2130810578
Cited by
580
References
52
FWCI
54.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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: Making sense of focus groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.x
The paper
Barbour, R. S. (2005). Making sense of focus groups. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.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.