IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v61y2005i12p2588-2599.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The focus group method: Insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents

Author

Listed:
  • Hyde, Abbey
  • Howlett, Etaoine
  • Brady, Dympna
  • Drennan, Jonathan

Abstract

This article concerns the manner in which group interaction during focus groups impacted upon the data generated in a study of adolescent sexual health. Twenty-nine group interviews were conducted with secondary school pupils in Ireland, and data were subjected to a qualitative analysis. In exploring the relationship between method and theory generation, we begin by focusing on the ethnographic potential within group interviews. We propose that at times during the interviews, episodes of acting-out, or presenting a particular image in the presence of others, can be highly revealing in attempting to understand the normative rules embedded in the culture from which participants are drawn. However, we highlight a specific problem with distinguishing which parts of the group interview are a valid representation of group processes and which parts accurately reflect individuals' retrospective experiences of reality. We also note that at various points in the interview, focus groups have the potential to reveal participants' vulnerabilities. In addition, group members themselves can challenge one another on how aspects of their sub-culture are represented within the focus group, in a way that is normally beyond reach within individual interviews. The formation and composition of focus groups, particularly through the clustering of like-minded individuals, can affect the dominant views being expressed within specific groups. While focus groups have been noted to have an educational and transformative potential, we caution that they may also be a source of inaccurate information, placing participants at risk. Finally, the opportunities that focus groups offer in enabling researchers to cross-check the trustworthiness of data using a post-interview questionnaire are considered. We conclude by arguing that although far from flawless, focus groups are a valuable method for gathering data about health issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyde, Abbey & Howlett, Etaoine & Brady, Dympna & Drennan, Jonathan, 2005. "The focus group method: Insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(12), pages 2588-2599, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:12:p:2588-2599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(05)00211-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crossley, Michele L., 2002. "'Could you please pass one of those health leaflets along?': exploring health, morality and resistance through focus groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(8), pages 1471-1483, October.
    2. Green, Judith & Siddall, Helen & Murdoch, Ian, 2002. "Learning to live with glaucoma: a qualitative study of diagnosis and the impact of sight loss," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 257-267, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stead, Martine & McDermott, Laura & MacKintosh, Anne Marie & Adamson, Ashley, 2011. "Why healthy eating is bad for young people's health: Identity, belonging and food," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1131-1139, April.
    2. Aventin, Áine & Lohan, Maria & O’Halloran, Peter & Henderson, Marion, 2015. "Design and development of a film-based intervention about teenage men and unintended pregnancy: Applying the Medical Research Council framework in practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 19-30.
    3. Hussein Haruna & Xiao Hu & Samuel Kai Wah Chu & Robin R. Mellecker & Goodluck Gabriel & Patrick Siril Ndekao, 2018. "Improving Sexual Health Education Programs for Adolescent Students through Game-Based Learning and Gamification," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, September.
    4. Eunyoung Kim & Eunkyoung Hwang, 2017. "Analysis of the Current Scoring Distribution by Evaluation Criteria in Korean Long-Life Housing Certification System Cases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, October.
    5. Jude Mikal & Kathryn Grace & Jack DeWaard & Molly Brown & Gabriel Sangli, 2020. "Domestic migration and mobile phones: A qualitative case study focused on recent migrants to Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-20, August.
    6. Julius Sim & Jackie Waterfield, 2019. "Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 3003-3022, November.
    7. Zeng, Michael A. & Koller, Hans & Jahn, Reimo, 2019. "Open radar groups: The integration of online communities into open foresight processes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 204-217.
    8. Isabelle Brault & Kelley Kilpatrick & Danielle D’Amour & Damien Contandriopoulos & Véronique Chouinard & Carl-Ardy Dubois & Mélanie Perroux & Marie-Dominique Beaulieu, 2014. "Role Clarification Processes for Better Integration of Nurse Practitioners into Primary Healthcare Teams: A Multiple-Case Study," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2014, pages 1-9, December.
    9. MacLean, Alice & Sweeting, Helen & Hunt, Kate, 2010. "'Rules' for boys, 'guidelines' for girls: Gender differences in symptom reporting during childhood and adolescence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 597-604, February.
    10. Edwin van Teijlingen & Jennifer Reid & Janet Shucksmith & Fiona Harris & Kate Philip & Mari Imamura & Janet Tucker & Gillian Penney, 2007. "Embarrassment as a Key Emotion in Young People Talking about Sexual Health," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, March.
    11. Silvennoinen, Piia & Rantanen, Teemu, 2023. "Digital agency of vulnerable people as experienced by rehabilitation professionals," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bottorff, Joan L. & Oliffe, John & Kalaw, Cecilia & Carey, Joanne & Mroz, Lawrence, 2006. "Men's constructions of smoking in the context of women's tobacco reduction during pregnancy and postpartum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(12), pages 3096-3108, June.
    2. Lehoux, Pascale & Poland, Blake & Daudelin, Genevieve, 2006. "Focus group research and "the patient's view"," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2091-2104, October.
    3. Moura, Andreia Ferreira & Aschemann-Witzel, Jessica, 2021. "Perspectives on sugar consumption expressed on social media by French-speaking and Danish-speaking parents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    4. Seale, Clive & Rivas, Carol & Al-Sarraj, Hela & Webb, Sarah & Kelly, Moira, 2013. "Moral mediation in interpreted health care consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 141-148.
    5. Heikkinen, Hanne & Patja, Kristiina & Jallinoja, Piia, 2010. "Smokers' accounts on the health risks of smoking: Why is smoking not dangerous for me?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(5), pages 877-883, September.
    6. Ryan, Kath & Bissell, Paul & Alexander, Jo, 2010. "Moral work in women's narratives of breastfeeding," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 951-958, March.
    7. Pajari, Pia M. & Jallinoja, Piia & Absetz, Pilvikki, 2006. "Negotiation over self-control and activity: An analysis of balancing in the repertoires of Finnish healthy lifestyles," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2601-2611, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:12:p:2588-2599. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.