Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative methods
To compare two different approaches to performing focus groups and individual interviews, an open approach, and an approach based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis attended focus groups (n = 49) and individual interviews (n = 21). Time, number of concepts, ICF categories identified, and sample size for reaching saturation of data were compared. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and independent t tests were performed.
With an overall time of 183 h, focus groups were more time consuming than individual interviews (t = 9.782; P < 0.001). In the open approach, 188 categories in the focus groups and 102 categories in the interviews were identified compared to the 231 and 110 respective categories identified in the ICF-based approach. Saturation of data was reached after performing five focus groups and nine individual interviews in the open approach and five focus groups and 12 individual interviews in the ICF-based approach.
The method chosen should depend on the objective of the study, issues related to the health condition, and the study’s participants. We recommend performing focus groups if the objective of the study is to comprehensively explore the patient perspective.
KeywordsFocus groups Individual interviews Qualitative research Rheumatoid arthritis International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)
- 3.Murphy, E., Dingwall, R., Greatbatch, D., Parker, S., & Watson, P. (1998). Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature (Vol. 2, no. 16). Southampton: Health Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
- 5.Moffatt, S., White, M., Mackintosh, J., & Howel, D. (2007). Using quantitative and qualitative data in health service research—what happens when mixed method findings conflict? Health Service Research, 6. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-1186-1128.
- 8.Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 9.Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 11.Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews—an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. California: Sage.Google Scholar
- 12.Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narratives and semi-structured methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- 13.Stewart, D., & Shamdasani, P. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- 14.Morgan, D. (1998). The focus group guidebook. Focus group kit I. Thousand Oak: Sage.Google Scholar
- 15.Carey, M. (Ed.). (1994). Issues in qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- 17.Morgan, D. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- 19.Thomas, L., MacMillan, J., McColl, E., Hale, C., & Bond, S. (1995). Comparison of focus group and individual interview methodology in examining patient satisfaction with nursing care. Social Sciences in Health, 1(4), 206–220.Google Scholar
- 20.World Health Organisation. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
- 21.Coenen, M., Cieza, A., Stamm, T., Amann, E., Kollerits, B., & Stucki, G. (2006). Validation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for rheumatoid arthritis from the patient perspective using focus groups. Arthritis Research & Therapy, 8, R84. doi:10.1186/ar1956.
- 22.Stamm, T., Cieza, A., Coenen, M., Machold, K., Nell, V., Smolen, J., et al. (2005). Validating the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Comprehensive Core Set for rheumatoid arthritis from the patient perspective: A qualitative study. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 53(3), 431–439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 25.Krueger, R., & Casey, M. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- 37.Carey, A. (1994). The group effect in focus groups: Planning, implementing, and interpreting focus group research. In J. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 225–241). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- 38.Greenbaum, T. (2000). Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 39.Kitzinger, J., & Barbour, R. (Eds.). (1999). Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups (Vol. 1–20). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- 42.Clarke, A. (1999). Focus group interviews in health-care research. Professional Nurse, 14(6), 395–397.Google Scholar
- 46.Albers, J., Kuper, H., van Riel, P., Prevoo, M., ‘t Hof, M., van Gestel, A., et al. (1999). Socio-economic consequences of rheumatoid arthritis in the first years of the disease. Rheumatology, 38, 423–430.Google Scholar
- 47.Jackson, P. (1998). Focus group interviews as a methodology. Nurse Researcher, 6(1), 72–84.Google Scholar
- 48.Clark, J. M., Maben, J., & Jones, K. (1996). The use of focus group interviews in nursing research: Issues and challenges. Nursing Times Research, 1(2), 143–153.Google Scholar
- 49.Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 50.Rasch, G. (1992). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar