The Experts below are selected from a list of 29481 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jess Holley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the influence of ethnic Group composition on Focus Group discussions
2014Co-Authors: Nan Greenwood, Theresa Ellmers, Jess HolleyAbstract:Focus Groups are commonly used to explore Participants’ experiences in health and social care research. Although it is suggested that having demographically homogenous Groups may help put Participants at ease, the evidence is sparse. The aims of the paper are to: explore the impact of relative ethnic homogeneity and heterogeneity of Focus Group Participants on the Group discussions; improve understanding of homogeneity and heterogeneity in Focus Groups; suggest ways to operationalise concepts such as being ‘more comfortable’ with other Focus Group Participants. Digitally recorded Focus Groups were undertaken with family carers of stroke survivors and were later transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. Groups were designated as more or less ethnically homogenous. More homogenous Groups included, for example, only White British or Asian Indian Participants whilst more heterogeneous Groups comprised a mixture of, for example, Asian, White British and Black Caribbean Participants. Forty-one carers participated in seven Focus Groups. Analysis revealed differences in discussions around ethnicity between the more or less ethnically homogenous Groups. For example, Participants in more ethnically homogenous Focus Groups were more likely to say ethnicity might influence perceptions of social care services. On the other hand, more heterogeneous Groups emphasised similarity in carers’ experiences, irrespective of ethnicity. Participants in the more homogenous Groups were also more likely to make potentially controversial comments relating to ethnic differences. Additionally they appeared to be more at ease with each other discussing the topic. For example, they spontaneously mentioned ethnic differences earlier in these Groups. In contrast, analysis of topics not specifically related to ethnicity, such as the difficult experiences of being a carer, produced no discernible patterns when comparing more and less homogenous Focus Groups. Considerations around Focus Group Participant demographic homogeneity and heterogeneity are complex and these terms may be most usefully applied only in relative terms. Data derived from more homogenous Groups complement data from more heterogeneous Groups providing different perspectives. Depending on the Focus of the discussion, having characteristics in common, such as being a carer can override other differences.
Norman Fost - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
study newsletters community and ethics advisory boards and Focus Group discussions provide ongoing feedback for a large biobank
2011Co-Authors: Catherine A Mccarty, Ann Garber, Jonathan C Reeser, Norman FostAbstract:The Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP) is a population-based biobank with more than 20,000 adult Participants in central Wisconsin. A Community Advisory Group (CAG) and Ethics and Security Advisory Board (ESAB) provide ongoing feedback. In addition, the study newsletter is used as a two-way communication tool with study Participants. The aim of this study was to assess and compare feedback received from these communication/consultation strategies with results from Focus Group discussions in relation to protocol changes. In summer 2009, enrollee Focus Groups were held addressing these topics: newsletter format, readability, and content of three articles written to solicit PMRP subject feedback. The CAG and ESAB jointly reviewed Focus Group results, discussed protocol changes to access residual blood samples, and made recommendations about the general communication approach. Nearly everyone in three Focus Groups stated that they wanted more information about PMRP. No Focus Group Participant said that accessing stored samples would have changed their enrollment decision. Most said they wanted to be informed directly about changes affecting their original consent. For minimal-risk PMRP protocol changes, the community, CAG, and ESAB were comfortable with an opt-out model because of the initial broad consent. The planned duration of the biobank extends for decades; therefore regular, ongoing communication to enrollees is necessary to maintain awareness and trust, especially relating to protocol changes reflecting evolving science. The multi-faceted approach to communication including newsletters, external advisory boards, and Focus Group discussions has been successful for the PMRP biobank and may be a model for others to consider.
Nan Greenwood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the influence of ethnic Group composition on Focus Group discussions
2014Co-Authors: Nan Greenwood, Theresa Ellmers, Jess HolleyAbstract:Focus Groups are commonly used to explore Participants’ experiences in health and social care research. Although it is suggested that having demographically homogenous Groups may help put Participants at ease, the evidence is sparse. The aims of the paper are to: explore the impact of relative ethnic homogeneity and heterogeneity of Focus Group Participants on the Group discussions; improve understanding of homogeneity and heterogeneity in Focus Groups; suggest ways to operationalise concepts such as being ‘more comfortable’ with other Focus Group Participants. Digitally recorded Focus Groups were undertaken with family carers of stroke survivors and were later transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. Groups were designated as more or less ethnically homogenous. More homogenous Groups included, for example, only White British or Asian Indian Participants whilst more heterogeneous Groups comprised a mixture of, for example, Asian, White British and Black Caribbean Participants. Forty-one carers participated in seven Focus Groups. Analysis revealed differences in discussions around ethnicity between the more or less ethnically homogenous Groups. For example, Participants in more ethnically homogenous Focus Groups were more likely to say ethnicity might influence perceptions of social care services. On the other hand, more heterogeneous Groups emphasised similarity in carers’ experiences, irrespective of ethnicity. Participants in the more homogenous Groups were also more likely to make potentially controversial comments relating to ethnic differences. Additionally they appeared to be more at ease with each other discussing the topic. For example, they spontaneously mentioned ethnic differences earlier in these Groups. In contrast, analysis of topics not specifically related to ethnicity, such as the difficult experiences of being a carer, produced no discernible patterns when comparing more and less homogenous Focus Groups. Considerations around Focus Group Participant demographic homogeneity and heterogeneity are complex and these terms may be most usefully applied only in relative terms. Data derived from more homogenous Groups complement data from more heterogeneous Groups providing different perspectives. Depending on the Focus of the discussion, having characteristics in common, such as being a carer can override other differences.
Catherine A Mccarty - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
study newsletters community and ethics advisory boards and Focus Group discussions provide ongoing feedback for a large biobank
2011Co-Authors: Catherine A Mccarty, Ann Garber, Jonathan C Reeser, Norman FostAbstract:The Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP) is a population-based biobank with more than 20,000 adult Participants in central Wisconsin. A Community Advisory Group (CAG) and Ethics and Security Advisory Board (ESAB) provide ongoing feedback. In addition, the study newsletter is used as a two-way communication tool with study Participants. The aim of this study was to assess and compare feedback received from these communication/consultation strategies with results from Focus Group discussions in relation to protocol changes. In summer 2009, enrollee Focus Groups were held addressing these topics: newsletter format, readability, and content of three articles written to solicit PMRP subject feedback. The CAG and ESAB jointly reviewed Focus Group results, discussed protocol changes to access residual blood samples, and made recommendations about the general communication approach. Nearly everyone in three Focus Groups stated that they wanted more information about PMRP. No Focus Group Participant said that accessing stored samples would have changed their enrollment decision. Most said they wanted to be informed directly about changes affecting their original consent. For minimal-risk PMRP protocol changes, the community, CAG, and ESAB were comfortable with an opt-out model because of the initial broad consent. The planned duration of the biobank extends for decades; therefore regular, ongoing communication to enrollees is necessary to maintain awareness and trust, especially relating to protocol changes reflecting evolving science. The multi-faceted approach to communication including newsletters, external advisory boards, and Focus Group discussions has been successful for the PMRP biobank and may be a model for others to consider.
Theresa Ellmers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the influence of ethnic Group composition on Focus Group discussions
2014Co-Authors: Nan Greenwood, Theresa Ellmers, Jess HolleyAbstract:Focus Groups are commonly used to explore Participants’ experiences in health and social care research. Although it is suggested that having demographically homogenous Groups may help put Participants at ease, the evidence is sparse. The aims of the paper are to: explore the impact of relative ethnic homogeneity and heterogeneity of Focus Group Participants on the Group discussions; improve understanding of homogeneity and heterogeneity in Focus Groups; suggest ways to operationalise concepts such as being ‘more comfortable’ with other Focus Group Participants. Digitally recorded Focus Groups were undertaken with family carers of stroke survivors and were later transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. Groups were designated as more or less ethnically homogenous. More homogenous Groups included, for example, only White British or Asian Indian Participants whilst more heterogeneous Groups comprised a mixture of, for example, Asian, White British and Black Caribbean Participants. Forty-one carers participated in seven Focus Groups. Analysis revealed differences in discussions around ethnicity between the more or less ethnically homogenous Groups. For example, Participants in more ethnically homogenous Focus Groups were more likely to say ethnicity might influence perceptions of social care services. On the other hand, more heterogeneous Groups emphasised similarity in carers’ experiences, irrespective of ethnicity. Participants in the more homogenous Groups were also more likely to make potentially controversial comments relating to ethnic differences. Additionally they appeared to be more at ease with each other discussing the topic. For example, they spontaneously mentioned ethnic differences earlier in these Groups. In contrast, analysis of topics not specifically related to ethnicity, such as the difficult experiences of being a carer, produced no discernible patterns when comparing more and less homogenous Focus Groups. Considerations around Focus Group Participant demographic homogeneity and heterogeneity are complex and these terms may be most usefully applied only in relative terms. Data derived from more homogenous Groups complement data from more heterogeneous Groups providing different perspectives. Depending on the Focus of the discussion, having characteristics in common, such as being a carer can override other differences.