CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91Focus Groups and Qualitative MethodsEducation during COVID-19 pandemicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Zooming into Focus Groups: Strategies for Qualitative Research in the Era of Social Distancing

Open access
Santhosh, Lekshmi, Rojas, Juan C., Lyons, Patrick G.·2021·ATS Scholar
DOI 10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0127psPMC PMC8357072
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Qualitative research methods are important and have become increasingly prominent in medical education and research. The reason is simple: many pressing questions in these fields require qualitative approaches to elicit nuanced insights and additional meaning beyond standard quantitative measurements in surveys or observatons. Among the most common qualitative data collection methods are structured or semistructured in-person interviews and focus groups, in which participants describe their experiences relevant to the research question at hand. In the era of physical and social distancing because of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, little guidance exists for strategies for conducting focus groups or semistructured interviews. Here we describe our experience with, and recommendations for, conducting remote focus groups and/or interviews in the era of social distancing. Specifically, we discuss best practice recommendations for researchers using video teleconferencing programs to continue qualitative research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 · 10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0127ps

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • In the era of COVID-19, the authors discovered that HCD methodology was easily adaptable, with modest modifications allowing them to continue their original curricular intervention.

    “In the era of COVID-19, we discovered that HCD methodology was easily adaptable, with modest modifications allowing us to continue our original curricular intervention (11).”

    From Cocreating the ICU-PAUSE Tool for Intensive Care Unit–Ward Transitions (2022) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Abstract describes moving planned in-person focus groups to videoconferencing during COVID-19, supporting the possibility of continuing a qualitative design process remotely. It does not establish that HCD methodology was easily adaptable with only modest modifications, or describe continuation of a curricular intervention; its project concerned ICU-to-ward handoffs. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rojas, 2020, Design thinking to create user-centered intensive care unit-ward handoffs at three academic hospitals, A1401

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Santhosh, L., Rojas, J. C., & Lyons, P. G.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • BJC HealthCare (US)
Corresponding author
Lyons, Patrick G.
ORCID
Venue
ATS Scholar
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2021-02-08
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
176-184
ISSN
2690-7097 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0127ps
PMC
PMC8357072
OpenAlex
W3127487353
Cited by
91
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 1
FWCI
20.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ATS Scholar (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
focus groups, videoconferencing, semi-structured interviews, social distancing, COVID-19 pandemic, qualitative data collection, medical education research, best practices

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