CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 226Focus Groups and Qualitative MethodsSurvey Methodology and NonresponseDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: examples from paediatric oncology

Open access
Tates, Kiek, Zwaanswijk, Marieke, Otten, Roel, van Dulmen, Sandra, Hoogerbrugge, Peter M, Kamps, Willem A, Bensing, Jozien M·2009·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-9-15PMC PMC2653071
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this article is to describe and evaluate the methodology of online focus group discussions within the setting of paediatric oncology. METHODS: Qualitative study consisting of separate moderated asynchronous online discussion groups with 7 paediatric cancer patients (aged 8-17), 11 parents, and 18 survivors of childhood cancer (aged 8-17 at diagnosis). RESULTS: All three participant groups could be actively engaged over a one-week period. Respondents highly valued the flexibility and convenience of logging in at their own time and place to join the discussion. Adolescent patients and survivors emphasized that the anonymity experienced made them feel comfortable to express their views in detail. The findings indicate a strong preference for online group discussions across all participant groups. CONCLUSION: The findings show that online focus group methodology is a feasible tool for collecting qualitative data within the setting of paediatric oncology, and may offer new opportunities to collect data in other hard-to-include populations. The evaluations seem to indicate that the online group discussions have given participants an opportunity to articulate their experiences and views in a way they might not have done in a traditional group discussion.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-9-15

Cites

55 of 55 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

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–226 of 226

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tates, K., Zwaanswijk, M., Otten, R., van Dulmen, S., Hoogerbrugge, P. M., Kamps, W. A., & Bensing, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NL)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Tates, Kiek
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-03-03
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
15-15
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2288-9-15
PMC
PMC2653071
OpenAlex
W2141815831
Cited by
226
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 8
FWCI
21.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
KWF Kankerbestrijding
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
online focus groups, pediatric oncology, childhood cancer, cancer survivors, parents of cancer patients, asynchronous online discussion, participant anonymity, patient and family experiences
MeSH terms
Humans, Medical Oncology, Online Systems, Pediatrics, Population, Focus Groups

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