Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 320, 50–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

  4. Oehman, A. (2005). Qualitative methodology for rehabilitation research. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37, 273–280.

    Article  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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kroll, T., Neri, M., & Miller, K. (2005). Using mixed methods in disability and rehabilitation research. Rehabilitation Nursing, 30(3), 106–113.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 

  10. Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 345–352.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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 

  16. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299–302.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Morgan, D. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kingry, M., Tiedje, L., & Friedman, L. (1990). Focus groups: A research technique for nursing. Nursing Research, 39(2), 124–125.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Krueger, R. (1995). The future of focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 524–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  40. Ezzy, D. (2001). Are qualitative methods misunderstood? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(4), 294–297.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Ward, V., Bertrand, J., & Brown, L. (1994). The comparability of focus groups and survey results. Evaluative Reviews, 15(2), 266–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Clarke, A. (1999). Focus group interviews in health-care research. Professional Nurse, 14(6), 395–397.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The performance of the focus groups was funded by the German self-help organization “Deutsche Rheuma-Liga e.V.–Bundesverband.” We thank Mrs. Elke Ruschek and Mrs. Sieglinde Stamm for their competent and precise transcribing of the focus groups and individual interviews. We would like to thank all patients who participated in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerold Stucki.

Additional information

Michaela Coenen, Gerold Stucki, and Alarcos Cieza—ICF Research Branch in cooperation with the WHO Collaborating Centre for the Family of International Classifications in Germany (at DIMDI). The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the ICF Research Branch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coenen, M., Stamm, T.A., Stucki, G. et al. Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative methods. Qual Life Res 21, 359–370 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9943-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9943-2

Keywords

Navigation