Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coproducing Online Focus or Consultation Groups for Health and Social Care Research

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Social Sciences and Global Public Health

Abstract

In this chapter, it is argued that the use of coproduction, in particular using online focus or consultation groups, is vital to gain a true understanding of what people want and need from health and social care services, and in empowering communities to advocate for that change. The recent pandemic expedited the move of services and research to online spaces. Understanding how to conduct research online in the most effective way has been challenging. However, online research has proven beneficial, reducing barriers to participation and enabling spaces for meaningful engagement. Although previously there have been arguments that online focus groups were too impersonal and did not facilitate trust between the researcher and the participants, it is now imperative that researchers get this balance right to utilize this tool effectively. Health and social care research should always be coproduced in an equitable partnership between experts by experience and researchers. Online focus groups can be an excellent way of conducting this research, and this chapter explores how to do this, and how to learn from mistakes made along the way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrams K, Gaiser T (2017) Online focus groups. Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957992

  • Allen D, Braithwaite J, Sandall J, Waring J (2016) Towards a sociology of healthcare safety and quality. Sociol Health Illn 38(2):181–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andress L, Hall T, Davis S et al (2020) Addressing power dynamics in community-engaged research partnerships. J Patient Rep Outcomes 4:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00191-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baym N (1995) The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication in Jones, S. (ed) (1995). Cybersociety. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Beebeejaun Y, Durose C, Rees J, Richardson J, Richardson L (2015) Public harm or public value? Towards coproduction in research with communities. Environ Plann C: Gov Policy 33(3):552–565. https://doi.org/10.1068/c12116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell DM, Pahl K (2018) Co-production: towards a utopian approach. Int J Soc Res Methodol 21(1):105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1348581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bragard E, Fisher CB, Curtis BL (2020) “They know what they are getting into:” researchers confront the benefits and challenges of online recruitment for HIV research. Ethics Behav 30(7):481–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2019.1692663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dos Santos Marques IC, Theiss LM, Johnson CY, McLin E, Ruf BA, Vickers SM, Fouad MN, Scarinci IC, Chu DI (2021) Implementation of virtual focus groups for qualitative data collection in a global pandemic. Am J Surg 221(5):918–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durose C, Beebeejaun Y, Rees J, Richardson J, Richardson L (2012) Towards co-production in research with communities. (Connected communities). Arts and Humanities Research Council, Manchester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennink M (2007) Introduction to focus group research. In: International focus group research: a handbook for the health and social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619458.002

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heyes K (2016) Using virtual ethnography to research vulnerable participants online: a case study of mental health online community support forums. SAGE Research Methods Cases Part 2. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526403605

  • Heyes K, Craig E, Gray P, Whittenbury K, Barclay L, Leigh J (2020) Young people and mental health: how do young people want mental health support to be delivered? Youth Policy. https://www.youthandpolicy.org/articles/young-people-mental-health/

  • Hokke S, Hackworth NJ, Bennetts SK, Nicholson JM, Keyzer P, Lucke J, Zion L, Crawford SB (2020) Ethical considerations in using social media to engage research participants: perspectives of Australian researchers and ethics committee members. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 15(1–2):12–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619854629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • InternetLiveStats (2022) Internet usage and social media statistics. [Online] Accessed on 29 June 2022. http://www.internetlivestats.com/

  • Liamputtong P (2007) Researching the vulnerable: guides to sensitive research methods. Sage, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liamputtong P (2011) Focus Group Methodology Principles and Practice. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Liamputtong P (2020) Qualitative research methods, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Marmot M (2004) Status syndrome. Bloomsbury, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath L, Walker C, Jones C (2016) Psychologists against austerity: mobilising psychology for social change. Crit Radic Soc Work 4(3):409–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin H (2009) What’s in a name:‘client’,‘patient’,‘customer’,‘consumer’,‘expert by experience’,‘service user’—what’s next? Br J Soc Work 39(6):1101–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK, Fiske M, Kendall PL (1956) The focused interview: a manual of problems and procedures. Free Press, Glencoe

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow O, Hawkins R, Kern L (2015) Feminist research in online spaces. Gend Place Cult 22(4):526–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2013.879108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett KE, Wilkinson RG (2010) Inequality: an underacknowledged source of mental illness and distress. Br J Psychiatry 197(6):426–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren Y, Harper FM, Drenner S, Terveen L, Kiesler S, Riedl J, Kraut RE (2012) Building member attachment in online communities: applying theories of group identity and interpersonal bonds. MIS Q: Manag Inf Syst 36(3):841–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sim J, Waterfield J (2019) Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges. Qual Quant 53:3003–3022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00914-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wacquant L (2008) Urban outcasts: a comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson RG, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level: why greater equality makes societies stronger. Bloomsbury Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

    Kim Heyes

Authors
  1. Kim Heyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Heyes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Camberwell, VIC, Australia

    Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Heyes, K. (2023). Coproducing Online Focus or Consultation Groups for Health and Social Care Research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Social Sciences and Global Public Health. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96778-9_55-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96778-9_55-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-96778-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-96778-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation