Cited by 98Focus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsDelphi Technique in Research

The influence of ethnic group composition on focus group discussions

Open access
Greenwood, Nan, Ellmers, Theresa, Holley, Jess·2014·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Focus groups are commonly used to explore participants' experiences in health and social care research. Although it is suggested that having demographically homogenous groups may help put participants at ease, the evidence is sparse.The aims of the paper are to: explore the impact of relative ethnic homogeneity and heterogeneity of focus group participants on the group discussions; improve understanding of homogeneity and heterogeneity in focus groups; suggest ways to operationalise concepts such as being 'more comfortable' with other focus group participants. METHOD: Digitally recorded focus groups were undertaken with family carers of stroke survivors and were later transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. Groups were designated as more or less ethnically homogenous. More homogenous groups included, for example, only White British or Asian Indian participants whilst more heterogeneous groups comprised a mixture of, for example, Asian, White British and Black Caribbean participants. RESULTS: Forty-one carers participated in seven focus groups. Analysis revealed differences in discussions around ethnicity between the more or less ethnically homogenous groups. For example, participants in more ethnically homogenous focus groups were more likely to say ethnicity might influence perceptions of social care services. On the other hand, more heterogeneous groups emphasised similarity in carers' experiences, irrespective of ethnicity. Participants in the more homogenous groups were also more likely to make potentially controversial comments relating to ethnic differences. Additionally they appeared to be more at ease with each other discussing the topic. For example, they spontaneously mentioned ethnic differences earlier in these groups.In contrast, analysis of topics not specifically related to ethnicity, such as the difficult experiences of being a carer, produced no discernible patterns when comparing more and less homogenous focus groups. CONCLUSION: Considerations around focus group participant demographic homogeneity and heterogeneity are complex and these terms may be most usefully applied only in relative terms.Data derived from more homogenous groups complement data from more heterogeneous groups providing different perspectives. Depending on the focus of the discussion, having characteristics in common, such as being a carer can override other differences.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-14-107

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [6]Greenwood N, Bowling A, Holley J, Ellmers T, Mein G, Cloud GC: A qualitative exploration of ethnic differences in satisfaction with social care amongst older carers of stroke survivors.NIHR-SSCR Funders Rep in press
  2. [8]Kitzinger J The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants Sociol Health Illn 1994 16 103 121 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [27]RATS Guidelines. http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/rats
  4. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/14/107/prepub

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greenwood, N., Ellmers, T., & Holley, J.
Affiliations
St George's, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Greenwood, Nan
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2014-09-20
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
107-107
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063297534
Cited by
98
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
10.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Kingston University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • School for Social Care Research
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 › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
focus groups, ethnic homogeneity, ethnic diversity, participant demographics, family caregivers, stroke, ethnicity, social care services, participant comfort, qualitative research design
MeSH terms
Aged, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Social Behavior, Caregivers, Focus Groups, Cultural Diversity, Stroke, Black People, White People, Asian People

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