Quality of Life Research

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 359–370 | Cite as

Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative methods

  • Michaela Coenen
  • Tanja A. Stamm
  • Gerold Stucki
  • Alarcos Cieza
Article

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Focus groups Individual interviews Qualitative research Rheumatoid arthritis International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) 

References

  1. 1.
    Giacomini, M., & Cook, D. (2000). Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care, a. Are the results of the study valide. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 357–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 320, 50–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Oehman, A. (2005). Qualitative methodology for rehabilitation research. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37, 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. 6.
    Fern, E. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kroll, T., Neri, M., & Miller, K. (2005). Using mixed methods in disability and rehabilitation research. Rehabilitation Nursing, 30(3), 106–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 345–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews—an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. California: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narratives and semi-structured methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stewart, D., & Shamdasani, P. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morgan, D. (1998). The focus group guidebook. Focus group kit I. Thousand Oak: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carey, M. (Ed.). (1994). Issues in qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morgan, D. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kingry, M., Tiedje, L., & Friedman, L. (1990). Focus groups: A research technique for nursing. Nursing Research, 39(2), 124–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 20.
    World Health Organisation. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  21. 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. 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
  23. 23.
    Arnett, F., Edworthy, S., Bloch, D., McShane, D., Fries, J., Cooper, N., et al. (1988). The American rheumatism association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 31(3), 315–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krueger, R., & Casey, M. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Ustun, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(4), 212–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., Amman, E., Kollerits, B., Chatterji, S., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34(5), 205–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cieza, A., & Stucki, G. (2004). New approaches to understanding the impact of musculoskeletal conditions. Best Practice & Research in Clinical Rheumatology, 18(2), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stucki, G., Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Battistella, L., Lloyd, J., Symmons, D., et al. (2004). ICF Core Sets for rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44(Suppl), 87–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thornton, C. (1996). A focus group inquiry into the perceptions of primary health care teams and the provision of health care for adults with a learning disability living in the community. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23(6), 1168–1176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Basch, C. (1987). Focus group interviews: An under-utilized research technique for improving theory and practice in health education. Health Education Quarterly, 14(4), 411–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krueger, R. (1995). The future of focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 524–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parsons, M., & Greenwood, J. (2000). A guide to the use of focus groups in health care research: Part 1. Contemporary Nurse, 9(2), 169–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rat, A.-C., Pouchot, J., Guillemin, F., Baumann, M., Retel-Rude, N., Spitz, E., et al. (2007). Content of quality-of-life instruments is affected by item-generation methods. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 390–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Powell, R., Single, H., & Lloyd, K. (1996). Focus groups in mental health research: Enhancing the validity of user and provider questionnaires. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 42, 193–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Coté-Arsenault, D., & Morrison-Beedy, D. (2005). Maintaining your focus in focus groups: Avoiding common mistakes. Research in Nursing and Health, 28, 172–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. 38.
    Greenbaum, T. (2000). Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kitzinger, J., & Barbour, R. (Eds.). (1999). Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups (Vol. 1–20). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ezzy, D. (2001). Are qualitative methods misunderstood? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(4), 294–297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ward, V., Bertrand, J., & Brown, L. (1994). The comparability of focus groups and survey results. Evaluative Reviews, 15(2), 266–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Clarke, A. (1999). Focus group interviews in health-care research. Professional Nurse, 14(6), 395–397.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Westhoff, G., Listing, J., & Zink, A. (2000). Loss of physical independence in rheumatoid arthritis: Interview data from a representative sample of patients in rheumatologic care. Arthritis Care & Research, 13, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zink, A., Listing, J., Klindworth, C., & Zeidler, H. (2001). The national database of the german collaborative arthritis centres: I. Structures, aims, and patients. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 60, 199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ahlmén, M., Nordenskiöld, U., Archenholtz, B., Thyberg, I., Rönnqvist, T., Lindén, L., et al. (2005). Rheumatology outcomes: The patient’s perspective. A multicentre focus group interview study of Swedish rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology, 44, 105–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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. 47.
    Jackson, P. (1998). Focus group interviews as a methodology. Nurse Researcher, 6(1), 72–84.Google Scholar
  48. 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. 49.
    Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rasch, G. (1992). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michaela Coenen
    • 1
  • Tanja A. Stamm
    • 2
  • Gerold Stucki
    • 3
    • 4
  • Alarcos Cieza
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute for Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Research Unit for Biopsychosocial Health, Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of RheumatologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department Health Sciences and Health PolicyUniversity of LucerneLuzern 7Switzerland
  4. 4.Swiss Paraplegic Research (SPF)NottwilSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations