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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Although virtual focus groups are a relatively new methodology, some studies have documented their advantages and the comparability of in-person and virtual focus group data.[24–28]”
From Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities (2014) · cites this paper as [28]
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
Morgan, D. (1998) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483328164 · Cited by 1,803
Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity
Joinson, A. N. (2001) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.36 · Cited by 1,458
Internet Communication and Qualitative Research
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849209281 · Cited by 1,335
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x · Cited by 1,242
Human Research and Data Collection via the Internet
Birnbaum, M. H. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601 · Cited by 927
Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. A. (2000) · Cited by 853
Health information-seeking behaviour in adolescence: the place of the internet
Gray, N. J., Klein, J. D., Noyce, P. R., Sesselberg, T. S., & Cantrill, J. A. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.010 · Cited by 791
Using the Internet for Surveys and Health Research
Eysenbach, G., & Wyatt, J. (2002) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13 · Cited by 790
Powell, R. A., & Single, H. M. (1996) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/8.5.499 · Cited by 707
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Khalil, R., Mansour, A. E., Fadda, W. A., Almisnid, K., Aldamegh, M., Al-Nafeesah, A., Alkhalifah, A., & Al-Wutayd, O. (2020) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-020-02208-z · Cited by 893
Williams, S. N., Armitage, C. J., Tampe, T., & Dienes, K. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039334 · Cited by 588
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-52643-5_30-1 · Cited by 329
E-Cigarettes: Prevalence and Attitudes in Great Britain
Dockrell, M. J., Morrison, R., Bauld, L., & McNeill, A. D. (2013) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntt057 · Cited by 314
Why parents refuse childhood vaccination: a qualitative study using online focus groups
Harmsen, I. A., Mollema, L., Ruiter, R. A. C., Paulussen, T. G., de Melker, H. E., & Kok, G. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-1183 · Cited by 193
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
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2009-03-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 15-15
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
