Abstract
The transition from the conventional approach to an online setting in conducting focus groups (FGs) for qualitative research is an increasingly adopted approach in health-related research. The purpose of this narrative review aims to provide an overview of the quality of FGs in health-related research that are conducted using various audio–visual (AV)-enabled and web-conferencing approaches. Online databases searched were Medline/PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Four key concepts (qualitative health-related research, online platforms, platform analysis, and quality measures) were used. A consensus group method, and a review of user guides of three of the currently used online platforms (i.e., “WebEx”, “Zoom”, and “Microsoft Teams”) were employed to develop a set of specific core quality criteria for appraising online qualitative research studies. While various synchronous and asynchronous online FG approaches were utilized in health-related research, audio–visual (AV)-enabled, and web-conferencing approaches were comparable to conventional FGs. These platforms are associated with several advantages, such as spontaneity in responses through real-time interactions among researchers and participants. The developed quality assessment tool for online FGs included criteria such as maintaining the privacy of participants and confidentiality of data collected, appraising the potential selection bias due to technological and logistical requirements, and ensuring the presence of features for recording video and audio within the software. The validated quality criteria that are used to evaluate face-to-face qualitative studies can be applicable in online contexts. However, additional criteria targeting the new features of the online platforms should be considered as well. This review helps health-related researchers and research academic institutions to select the online platform that best addresses their research and institutional needs while maintaining good quality, time-efficient, and cost-effectiveness.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Introduction and background
Qualitative research is a crucial component in the healthcare field, which seeks to produce rich evidence that cannot be obtained and examined while conducting quantitative research (Holloway, 2005). Focus groups (FGs) are a well-established, valuable data collection technique for qualitative health-related research (Kitzinger, 1994; McLafferty, 2004; Morgan, 1997). A focus group is an organized discussion about a research topic with a group of participants to gain their joint perspectives. FGs are particularly useful when participants are similar in their background and experience and cooperate with each other, which yields a complex discussion (Creswell and Poth, 2016). This approach is originally supposed to be carried out in a face-to-face modality to facilitate the interaction between participants and researchers, which contributes to yielding a large amount of qualitative data about individuals’ knowledge and perceptions that affect their behaviors (Guest et al., 2013; Kitzinger, 1994; Krueger, 2014). Despite being considered a robust approach for collecting data in qualitative research, FGs continue to lag behind due to substantial logistical challenges that restrict effective participation, such as date, time, and location (Rolls et al., 2016). High costs associated with transcript and participant compensation are resource challenges associated with conducting FGs in qualitative health-related research (Nicholas et al., 2010).
The COVID-19 pandemic, and similar crisis situations, increased the challenges associated with conducting face-to-face FGs because of quarantines and social distancing requirements. These challenges necessitate the suspension or postponement of face-to-face FGs, or a transition from the conventional approach to an online setting (Remesh, 2020). Notably, there has been global leverage of technological resources to conduct FGs in a time-efficient and cost-effective manner (Weiner et al., 2020). These technological advancements include the availability of high-speed internet; the development of advanced video-conferencing platforms, the proliferation of portable smartphones, tablets, and laptops with built-in cameras, the availability of cloud storage services for sharing documents, images, and other multimedia files; and the enhancement of security and privacy measures such as participant authentication, secure data transmission, and encryption. Hence, the transition from conventional face-to-face FGs to an online modality is facilitated (Fox et al., 2007; Mann and Stewart, 2000).
Conducting online FGs becomes an increasingly popular method for collecting qualitative data in several research fields since the advancement of technology and the popularity of internet use (Schneider et al., 2002; Stewart and Williams, 2005; Synnot et al., 2014; Wilkerson et al., 2014). Online FGs are generally computer-mediated “communication events” in which a group of individuals virtually assemble to discuss a specific topic mimicking a face-to-face approach (Clapper and Massey, 1996; Morgan and Morgan, 1993; Sweet, 2001). Online FGs interactions can be conducted in the form of text, voice, video, or a combination of these, and can be held either synchronously or asynchronously (Stewart and Williams, 2005; Sweet, 2001). An asynchronous internet environment is a non-concurrent interactive communication that occurs through closed email discussions, discussion boards, weblogs (blogs), newsgroups, or LISTSERV mailing lists (Lobe, 2017; Mann and Stewart, 2000; Tuttas, 2015a, 2015b). Asynchronous text-based online FGs have been employed in various health-related research in several different forms (Acocella, 2012; Bringsvor et al., 2014; Hatten et al., 2014; Moltu et al., 2012; Murray, 1997; Rolls et al., 2008; Salmon, 2013; Whitehead, 2007). They offer a means to facilitate participant recruitment and involvement, especially for geographically dispersed participants (Murray, 1997; Williams et al., 2012). Participation in asynchronous online FGs also offers the advantage of maintaining anonymity which facilitates free-flowing and more open discussions especially when related to sensitive topics in contrast to face-to-face FG (Campbell et al., 2001; Nicholas et al., 2010; Turney and Pocknee, 2005).
Other forms of text-based online FGs which have demonstrated success fit in the category of real-time interaction, facilitated by synchronous computer-mediated messaging applications, such as Audium, MSN messenger, AIM, Google Hangouts, Gaim, Trillian, Kadu, Pidgin, and web messaging facilities like Facebook Live Messenger, etc. However, researchers argue that asynchronous text-based techniques are inadequate for monitoring fundamental components of FGs, such as moderators’ role, nonverbal behaviors, and the group atmosphere and dynamics (Galloway, 2011; Greenbaum, 2002). Moreover, synchronous text-based applications have the challenges of skill-related limitations, such as participants’ typing speeds, which may affect the spontaneity of interactions (Fox et al., 2007).
The current technological advancement facilitates real-time communications among participants where they can be seen and heard through the evolvement of synchronous (AV)-enabled applications (e.g., Skype, AnyMeeting, Google Hangouts, Facebook Video Chat, etc.) and web-conferencing platforms (e.g., Zoom, Cisco WebEx, Meetings.io, etc.) (Lobe, 2017). These approaches have been utilized in health-related research fields in providing consultation services (Hasan, 2012), improving the quality of care (Wakefield et al., 2004), developing health behavior change interventions (Thrul et al., 2017), and collecting qualitative data for research projects (Sedgwick and Spiers, 2009; Tuttas, 2015a, 2015b). The quality of data produced by online FGs in the field of health-related research using AV-enabled, and web-conferencing platforms remains relatively inadequately examined. Furthermore, the availability of technical guidance reports about the features of the currently used synchronous AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms that best suit health-related research requirements, and their optimal use of them are also lacking. The main focus of this review is to investigate the quality and technical aspects of FGs conducted in health-related research, specifically examining the utilization of different AV-enabled and web-conferencing approaches. Therefore, this paper aims to (1) review the pros and cons challenges of using AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms in conducting online FGs for qualitative health-related research; (2) propose quality assessment criteria for online FGs in qualitative health-related research; and (3) provide a technical guide and a comparison between the currently used synchronous AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms (i.e., WebEx, Zoom, and MS Teams).
Methods
Overall literature review methodology
A narrative literature review of findings related to the objectives was conducted in December 2020. Findings were retrieved from the most common medical/health and science online databases, which included: Medline/PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, as well as Google Scholar. Four key concepts (qualitative health-related research, online platforms, platform analysis, and quality measures) were used in this review. Keywords used to search for qualitative health-related research included: “health research”, “qualitative”, and “focus group(s)”. Keywords used for online platforms concept search included: “online”, “virtual”, “WebEx”, “Zoom”, “MS Teams”, and “Microsoft Teams”. Keywords used for platforms analysis included: “pros”, “advantage(s)”, “cons”, “disadvantage(s)”, and “guidance”. Keywords used to search for the quality measure concept included: “quality measures”, “trustworthiness”, “credibility”, “conformability”, “transferability”, and “dependability”. Boolean search strategy (AND, OR) was used to combine concepts and keywords. The review included journal articles that are human-based (i.e., not animal or in vitro research-based articles), book chapters, and reviews (e.g., literature or systematic). Only English-written articles were included, and there was no restriction on geographical location or publishing date. Articles that mentioned the use of any online platform to conduct qualitative research only without reflecting on the use of this online platform were excluded as they do not provide answers to the current paper objectives. Google Scholar and ProQuest searches resulted in a variety of article types that were not relevant to this review, such as media releases, letters, commentaries, pre-print/in-process, or conference papers.
Quality measures development for conducting online FGs in health-related research
A search of the literature (applying the above strategy) was conducted in an effort to determine if there are existing set of specific quality criteria that are developed and validated for use in the context of conducting qualitative studies using web-conferencing platforms. Search findings revealed scant information in terms of quality criteria used in this context. Therefore, a consensus group method was employed by the research team to develop a set of specific core quality criteria for appraising online qualitative research studies, as well as to determine if traditional tools used in face-to-face FGs are suitable in the context of qualitative studies conducted using AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms. The consensus group (i.e., the current research team) composed of six experts from academia (faculty members in medical and health education, and qualitative researchers), and from the Information Technology Department (ITD) at Qatar University (QU), met online in the period December 2020 to February 2021 to propose and evaluate a set of assessment criteria. Members of this group have experience in conducting face-to-face and online FGs, and individual interviews. Throughout meetings, the consensus group members reviewed the available literature in this context, evaluated the quality of evidence that suggested specific criteria, and proposed new measures that were deemed significant and relevant based on their expertise in conducting both online and face-to-face FGs.
Technical guide development for the use and selection of AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms
The literature was searched (applying the above strategy) to identify the existing technical guides for the currently used AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms in academic institutions and research centers (i.e., Cisco WebEx, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom). Additionally, the user guides for the three platforms were reviewed and summarized by an expert in network and telecommunications (a member of the team), and the features were critically analyzed for their appropriateness in health research use by the other team members who had expertise in health and qualitative research.
Results and discussion
Pros and challenges of online FGs
Pros of conducting FGs through AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms
Synchronous online FGs through AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms have been employed in qualitative health-related research in a way that closely resembles conventional face-to-face FGs. This technology provides real-time interaction among researchers and participants across a wider range of geographical locations where Internet service is accessible (Tuttas, 2015a, 2015b). The opportunity for participants and moderators to concurrently see and listen to each other allowed for immediacy and spontaneity in responses which facilitate the active role of moderators, and support the interaction, engagement, and nonverbal activity among participants (Tuttas, 2015a, 2015b). Hence, this technology enables researchers to examine the quality of the discussions, and to gain better insights and deeper perspectives about the communications (Tuttas, 2015a, 2015b). This technology was also employed in carrying out FGs as a cost-saving technique because it eliminates travel costs for both researchers and participants (Lobe, 2017).
Challenges of conducting FGs through AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms
Online FGs are more suitable for individuals who are substantially more likely to utilize social media or be heavy internet users (Williams et al., 2020). These platforms also necessitate the availability and accessibility of internet connection by all potential participants, in addition to functioning AV equipment, especially for desktop computers (Lobe et al., 2020). In some cases, the quality of the internet connection and the AV tools matter, especially if capturing nonverbal reactions from participants is important to researchers (Lobe et al., 2020). Also, having an adequate level of knowledge and skills in using a computer is required for both researchers and participants (Davies et al., 2020; Lobe, 2017). Likewise, an appropriate surrounding environment, where no interruptions and distractions are experienced, should be assured for optimal FGs discussions (Lobe et al., 2020; Morgan and Lobe, 2011). These all are beside the unanticipated technical issues that may arise when conducting FGs with a large number of participants (Lobe, 2017; Lobe et al., 2020; Morgan and Lobe, 2011).
Conducting FGs through online AV-enabled or web-conferencing platforms
The use of online AV-enabled or web-conferencing platforms in conducting FGs is growing in the health-related research literature. Several studies in the literature have discussed the experience of researchers and participants with online FGs in different contexts. For example, Matthews et al. (2018) focused on the national implementation of advanced practitioner radiation therapy in Australia (Matthews et al., 2018), Tuttas (2015a, 2015b) examined the impact of onboarding experiences on travel nurses’ job performance (Tuttas, 2015a, 2015b), and Smith (2014) investigated the experience of low-vision therapists and occupational therapy students using WebEx technology for refining the Low Vision Independence Measure (LVIM) (Smith, 2014). These studies collectively demonstrate the benefits of video-enabled online FGs. First, they allow for the effective participation of dispersed participants. Participants from different geographical locations can come together in a virtual setting, enabling a wider range of perspectives and enriching the data collected. Second, video-enabled platforms offer the immediacy of response and high levels of group interaction and engagement, mimicking the dynamics of traditional face-to-face FGs. This fosters a conducive environment for open discussions and idea exchange among participants. In addition, online FGs can be cost-effective, as they eliminate the need for travel and accommodation expenses associated with in-person meetings.
However, these studies also highlight some challenges associated with video-enabled online FGs. Technical issues, such as unstable internet connections or software glitches, can disrupt the sessions and cause participant reassignment or data loss. To enhance the benefits and overcome challenges, several strategies are recommended. Researchers should establish clear protocols and guidelines for conducting online FGs, including pre-session software testing to ensure accessibility, stability, and recording capability. Moreover, researchers must have a comprehensive understanding of the technology being used to ensure optimal data collection. In addition, clear instructions and guidance should be provided to participants to mitigate any potential usability challenges they may encounter. Furthermore, adequate training and support should be provided to both researchers and participants to ensure smooth and effective engagement during the sessions. When it is feasible, sending research assistants to participant sites to provide hands-on assistance might also be helpful.
In a series of studies, researchers examined different modalities for conducting focus groups (FGs) and interviews: Namey et al. (2020) compared in-person, online video-based, online chat-based, and online email/message board-based modalities (Namey et al., 2020); Rupert et al. (2017) compared video-based and live chat-based synchronous online FGs with face-to-face FGs (Rupert et al., 2017); and Kite and Phongsavan (2017) compared face-to-face FGs with web-conferencing service (Blackboard Collaborate) FGs (Kite and Phongsavan, 2017). Together, these studies suggest that employing various modalities for FGs and interviews offers several advantages. Firstly, audio–visual modalities (in-person and online video) tend to generate substantially more data compared to text-based modalities. This suggests that the visual and auditory cues present in audio–visual modalities enhance the richness and depth of data collected. In addition, online modalities offer the advantage of cost savings in terms of travel expenses, especially when compared to in-person FGs. Online modalities also provide flexibility in terms of scheduling and enable the participation of geographically dispersed populations, allowing for a more diverse sample. Furthermore, the quality of data and level of discussion in online modalities were found to be comparable to face-to-face approaches, making them a viable alternative, particularly for remote or rural populations. Nevertheless, these modalities come with their own set of challenges. Online data collection is typically more expensive per event than in-person interviews or FGs, primarily due to platform fees, transcription requirements, and longer scheduling periods. Participants in video-based FGs may experience reduced rapport and personal ease, while text-based FGs may lead to a higher likelihood of opposing views among participants. Technical issues can also arise in online modalities, potentially impacting the quality and reliability of the data collected. Therefore, it is crucial that researchers consider the research objectives and target population in selecting the appropriate modality and choose a modality that aligns with their research goals and caters to the needs and preferences of participants.
Gratton and O’Donnell (2011) have examined the preferences of First Nations people living in remote communities in Canada regarding online health information through the conduction of focus groups via a multi-site videoconference (Gratton and O’Donnell, 2011). The authors remarked on the success and the quality of data collected using the video-conferencing approach through active participation, and the ability to observe facial expressions and body language which aims to minimize the likelihood that responses will be misunderstood (Gratton and O’Donnell, 2011). Moreover, the adoption of this strategy in conducting FGs revealed enormous cost and time savings (Gratton and O’Donnell, 2011). Nevertheless, the authors reported some limits to the use of video-conferencing strategy such as the difficulties in coordinating the session (Gratton and O’Donnell, 2011).
In an attempt to overcome the challenges of face-to-face FGs (e.g., recruitment challenges of healthcare professionals, geographical issues, and limited research budget), Flynn et al. (2018) used a video-conferencing technology (Alberta Health Services “Telehealth”) to conduct FGs with healthcare professionals on process evaluation of two research programs in Canada (Flynn et al., 2018). It was shown that the use of video-conferencing technology accommodated the needs of the participants by increasing scheduling flexibility and offering a high-quality service that was reliable and maintained participants’ confidentiality (Flynn et al., 2018). Collectively, the video-conferencing technology was more efficient and economical than face-to-face FGs (Flynn et al., 2018).
Quality measures in conducting online FGs for health-related research
The quality of qualitative research has been widely discussed in the published literature (Amin et al., 2020; Hadi and José Closs, 2016; Hammersley, 2007; Mays and Pope, 2000; Mukhalalati and Awaisu, 2019; Rolfe, 2006). Qualitative research validation involves ensuring the rigor of the data collection, management, and analysis methods. In qualitative health-related research, the use of reliability, validity, and generalizability to ensure quality should be used carefully because of differences in the research paradigm, the nature of knowledge produced by conducting qualitative research, and the utilized tools to produce that knowledge (Amin et al., 2020; Mukhalalati and Awaisu, 2019; Santiago-Delefosse et al., 2016).
Therefore, it might be best to use qualitative approaches and terms to ensure the quality of qualitative research, such as the trustworthiness criteria (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), including credibility, conformability, transferability, and dependability (Amin et al., 2020; Mukhalalati and Awaisu, 2019). Existing quality assessment tools are conceptualized and operationalized while taking the context (e.g., the nature of interaction) into consideration (Fàbregues and Molina-Azorín, 2017; O’Brien et al., 2014; Tong et al., 2007). Challenges to the determination of quality criteria include the plurality of views among researchers, particularly regarding how quality should be conceptualized and appraised (Fàbregues and Molina-Azorín, 2017; Hadi and José Closs, 2016; Hammersley, 2007; Rolfe, 2006), and the perception that qualitative research quality is highly context-dependent. Collins et al. (2012) argue that two scholars from different disciplines or intellectual communities may differ in their opinion of what quality is or how it should be measured (Collins et al., 2012). Some commonly used tools to assess the quality of qualitative research include the 21-item SRQR (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research) (O’Brien et al., 2014) and the 32-item COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) (Tong et al., 2007). The ultimate aim of quality assessment is to promote well-designed and properly implemented qualitative research studies (Hadi and José Closs, 2016; Mays and Pope, 2000; Rolfe, 2006). In this regard, Salmons (2012) suggested that qualitative research purposes should be aligned with research design to produce quality data (Salmons, 2012). Moreover, Merriam (1998) contended that the validity of FG discoveries should be seen in the consistency between information disclosed during the interview meeting and the plan of the subsequent theory (Merriam, 1998).
Despite the large body of evidence about the experiences of researchers and participants with online FGs, only a few studies have assessed the quality of data generated through AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms and their comparability to traditional face-to-face FGs. In addition, there is an apparent lack of guidelines for researchers on assurance and assessment of quality for FGs conducted online. Whether researchers should rely on traditional quality assessment processes and tools, or they should incorporate additional criteria is not well-elucidated in the literature. The validity of traditional FGs can be monitored by parameters such as the clarity of research questions and objectives, the appropriateness of participants’ recruitment, the moderators’ role, and the data analysis (Bers, 1989). Since AV-assisted online FGs resemble the traditional face-to-face FGs to a large extent (i.e., similar methodological, practical, and ethical considerations), Daniels et al. (2019) encouraged the utilization of these parameters in evaluating the validity of online FGs in health-related researches (Daniels et al., 2019). On the other hand, Pocock et al. (2021) argued that the mechanisms and framework created by Salmons (2011) on designing and conducting online interview research are crucial in ensuring the yield of quality data and could be extended to AV-enabled and web-conferencing FGs (Pocock et al., 2021; Salmons, 2011). These mechanisms include (1) considering the reason why the researcher wants to conduct online interviews or FGs, (2) sampling and recruiting participants, (3) acknowledging the researcher’s position, (4) deciding on an interview style, (5) choosing the virtual communication technology, (6) running the online interviews or FGs, and (7) dealing with ethical concerns (Salmons, 2011).
Qualitative research studies conducted using online platforms have other unique features with respect to ethical and methodological considerations (Franzke et al., 2020; Lobe et al., 2020; Roberts, 2015; Tuttas, 2015a, 2015b) and as such, should be appraised according to a specified set of quality criteria. Addressing threats to quality in these new approaches can be more challenging than in conventional methods, due to the increasing methodological, logistical, and ethical complexity of these online interviewing platforms (Daniels et al., 2019). Addressing quality in the context of web-based qualitative methods such as online FGs is important because investigators and readers need criteria to ensure that the study under investigation is rigorous, transparent, and trustworthy (Hadi and José Closs, 2016; Hammersley, 2007; Lobe et al., 2020; Rolfe, 2006). This is especially relevant in this evolving approach, as certain fundamental principles are still unfamiliar to many researchers. Furthermore, quality criteria are useful to avoid the shortcomings that may be associated with the design and implementation of the new online approaches. Identification of criteria to assess the quality and formalizing them in a tool is highly warranted.
The authors of the current review believe that the validated quality criteria and tools that are conventionally used to evaluate qualitative studies conducted face-to-face such as SRQR and COREQ can be applicable in the context of socially-distant data collection methods. Therefore, a researcher can choose and apply any of the validated tools that are appropriate to their context. On the other hand, quality assessment is incomplete if additional criteria targeting the new features of the online platforms are not taken into account. Davies et al. (2020) claimed that the technology and facilitator skills are what determine the quality of data gathered during online interviews and focus groups (Davies et al., 2020).
Tuttas (2015a, 2015b) suggested some measures to be considered in choosing an online platform that is reasonable for AV-enabled or web-conferencing FGs (Tuttas, 2015a, 2015b). The importance of choosing an application that supports meetings with a maximum of ten participants was emphasized by the investigator. Tuttas (2015a, 2015b) highlighted the need for adequate security measures that restrict access to the FG meeting only to the invitees, as well as the ability to record and playback the recorded AV content. The authors of the current review believe that the chosen online application ought to offer researchers the option to apply recording restrictions to study researchers only to protect data during its collection, and to customize notifications when recording is initiated. Lobe et al. (2022) claimed that in-person data collection sessions are relatively safer because the researcher can prevent unauthorized recording, but in online data collection sessions, technologically proficient participants can secretly record without the researchers’ knowledge, even with typical recording restrictions in video-conferencing software (Lobe et al., 2022). Tuttas (2015a, 2015b) also proposed that the platform should be simple for use by FGs participants and does not need to be purchased or installed on their computers. Therefore, these measures should be considered while making quality evaluation guidance for online FGs. The section that follows attempts to provide some guidance on quality measures to researchers intending to use online FGs.
Daniels et al. (2019) suggested important factors that should be considered to overcome the methodological challenges, enable authentic interactions, and ensure data are collected robustly and in adherence to ethical considerations while conducting synchronized FG using AV-enabled technology in a healthcare research context (Daniels et al., 2019). These factors are related to (1) stability of group numbers (e.g., late/early arrival of participants), (2) technology (e.g., participants joining with audio only, and the availability of technical support for participants), (3) environment from which participants take part (e.g., distractions within the participant’s environment), (4) evaluation (i.e., limited evidence of the effect on data), and (5) recruitment (e.g., participant alienation) (Daniels et al., 2019). The quality of the internet, which tends to be poorer in remote and under-resourced areas, impacts several factors that are proposed by Daniels et al. (2019) (Lucendo-Monedero et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2015). This poses significant challenges for equitable participation in health-related research, which places a strong emphasis on addressing issues of fairness and inclusivity (Carter et al., 2021; Kaihlanen et al., 2022). As an expansion for the mechanisms suggested by Salmons (2011), Pocock et al. (2021) recommended over-recruiting participants due to high attrition rates, conducting practice sessions to ensure that all facilitators are familiar with the AV features, and assessing the technological capability of participants (Pocock et al., 2021).
A notable difference between online and face-to-face FGs is the complexity of the facilitators’ role (Matthews et al., 2018; Morrison et al., 2020; Pocock et al., 2021). The researchers claimed that in virtual environments, the facilitators should possess knowledge of the technology and be prepared to address any technical issues that may arise. In addition, they should pay attention to the unique characteristics of the online platform, such as managing conversations involving multiple participants in a single space, managing participant movement between main spaces and smaller breakout rooms, managing simultaneous verbal and chat function responses, and being aware of participants’ nonverbal cues and pauses. Lobe et al. (2022) claimed that moderators have access to a wider array of nonverbal cues in face-to-face group interviews, enabling them to effectively manage participants who are either less talkative or more dominant (Lobe et al., 2022). Examples of such cues include directing more eye contact toward participants who contribute less to the conversation and deliberately shifting attention away from those who tend to dominate the discussion (Lobe et al., 2022). Online modes, in contrast, enable moderators to use private chat messages to involve less active participants, effectively managing overly talkative participants, which is a common technique in focus groups (Lobe et al., 2022; Morgan, 2018). With regards to the interview question types that are well-suited for online FGs, Lobe et al. (2022) challenged the notion that traditional questioning methods and interviewer guides are satisfactory, considering the relatively inflexible dynamics observed among participants in online focus groups, especially in less-structured groups (Lobe et al., 2022). As a result, it is crucial to conduct additional experimentation using a range of question strategies (Morgan, 2018) in order to identify the most effective approaches for fostering dynamic and engaging online group discussions (Lobe et al., 2022).
Various researchers have suggested taking extra caution with adhering to ethical principles. For example, different privacy and data protection laws are advised to be followed when involving participants from diverse geographical contexts in online research (Eynon et al., 2017; Salmons, 2016; Stewart et al., 2017). Preserving privacy holds significance when considering various ideals and principles. Some fundamental values such as human dignity, upholding individual autonomy, promoting the freedom to engage and interact with others without constant surveillance, and encouraging freedom of thought and innovation (Eynon et al., 2017). An example of privacy and data protection laws is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a comprehensive data protection law that applies to the USA and all EU member states. It imposes strict regulations on the collection, processing, and transfer of personal data and provides individuals with rights regarding their data (Council., 2022). Marhefka et al., (2020) also suggested providing procedures for the research team that outline expectations for maintaining privacy and confidentiality (e.g., using headphones and remaining alone in a room), professionalism (e.g., dressing appropriately and being conscious of what is shown on camera), and how to handle difficulties (e.g., develop a technical support guide) (Marhefka et al., 2020). Moreover, Pocock et al. (2021) raised emphasis on the uncertainty of ensuring participants’ full understanding of the research purposes and process which necessitates an additional need for adequate engagement in the informed consent process (Pocock et al., 2021). Participants should be aware of their rights, which include the freedom to participate and the right to leave the FG at any moment without consequence. It is interesting that withdrawal is easier while doing online FG as opposed to conventional face-to-face FG because it only requires electronically cutting the connection (Neville et al., 2016). Informed consent can be received as a verbal statement at the beginning of the FG session (Salmons, 2016; Stewart et al., 2017), or word processor capabilities or tools like Adobe Sign might be used to show their agreement on the relevant documents and to be sent through email to the researchers (Pocock et al., 2021). Moreover, with regard to data security and storage, Lobe et al. (2020) recommended that AV content has to be promptly removed from the device and the online platform used for the data collection (Lobe et al., 2020; Lobe et al., 2022).
Pocock et al. (2021) provided recommendations for analyzing and interpreting virtual qualitative data, utilizing traditional methods of qualitative research design and data management as a basis (Pocock et al., 2021). Researchers should establish what characteristics to observe (such as participant situations, behaviors, verbal and nonverbal signals), how to interpret visual observations, and whether their study design permits audio–visual recording of online FGs, which have implications for informed consent and data storage (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016; Pocock et al., 2021). Moreover, Pocock et al. (2021) suggested that researchers should be mindful of the research context and decide how much of it to incorporate in their reflections, analyses, and interpretations (Pocock et al., 2021). Due to the fact that researchers can only see what is in the camera field or is reported in writing, virtual research is intrinsically less contextualized than traditional field studies (Weller, 2017). However, using virtual research techniques allows one to consider how information is co-constructed, when participants’ interaction is facilitated or inhibited, and overall spontaneity and nonverbal cues (Pocock et al., 2021; Weller, 2017). Hence, the influence of the virtual mode and data collection methods on analysis and interpretation should be considered. According to Matthews et al. (2018), nonverbal responses from audio–visual recordings might be included in transcripts to supplement the analysis (Matthews et al., 2018). Lehoux et al. (2006) argued that it could be difficult to analyze social interactions from in-person FGs (Lehoux et al., 2006), and Pocock et al. (2021) claimed that online FGs add complexity since users can choose to turn off their video cameras, which alters the audio–visual data that is accessible and might have an effect on other users’ behavior (Pocock et al., 2021). Therefore, in combination with the research design, decisions concerning data collection and analysis for social interactions should be taken early.
Based on the existing quality assessment tools and considering the setting of online platforms, a set of additional core quality criteria that may be used in this context is proposed and illustrated in Table 1. Despite proposing a set of core quality criteria for appraising qualitative research employing online approaches, future work should focus on consolidating the criteria and undertaking a more stringent validation process.
Technical guide for selecting and using AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms in conducting online FGs
Academic institutions commonly subscribe to Cisco WebEx Microsoft Teams, and Zoom platforms based on the technical features of these AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms. Table 2 illustrates the different features of AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms, which helps qualitative researchers to select the most suitable AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms for their research. Zoom platform features are almost similar to Cisco WebEx; however, Zoom users experienced a “Zoom Boom” security breach, which caused major disruption in the services (Lobe et al., 2020).
Conclusions
A shift from the traditional method of conducting in-person FGs in qualitative health research to an online platform has been observed. While various synchronous and asynchronous online FG approaches were utilized in health-related research, AV-enabled and web-conferencing approaches were comparable to face-to-face FGs. The use of AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms for online FGs offers advantages such as real-time interactions and cost efficiency. However, there are challenges related to technology and environmental interruptions. Ensuring research quality in online FGs can be more complex due to methodological, logistical, and ethical factors. In this article, a set of core quality criteria were proposed, and a consensus about them was reached by a group of researchers and IT experts. The quality criteria include a description of the online meeting platform, features of AV recording, security applications and maintenance of confidentiality, informed consent and adequacy of information provided to participants, and potential selection bias. Importantly, the technical and security measures should be carefully considered when appraising the quality of online FG research. Future work should focus on consolidating the quality criteria for appraising online FGs and undertaking a more stringent validation process. This work provided a technical guide about different platforms to help qualitative researchers to select AV-enabled and web-conferencing platforms to conduct their online FGs based on their research needs.
Data availability
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
References
Acocella I (2012) The focus groups in social research: advantages and disadvantages. Qual Quant 46(4):1125–1136
Amin MEK, Norgaard LS, Cavaco AM, Witry MJ, Hillman L, Cernasev A, Desselle SP (2020) Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Res Social Adm Pharm 16(10):1472–1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.02.005
Bers TH (1989) The popularity and problems of focus—group research. Coll Univ 64(3):260–268
Bringsvor HB, Bentsen SB, Berland A (2014) Sources of knowledge used by intensive care nurses in Norway: an exploratory study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 30(3):159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2013.12.001
Campbell MK, Meier A, Carr C, Enga Z, James AS, Reedy J, Zheng B (2001) Health behavior changes after colon cancer: a comparison of findings from face-to-face and on-line focus groups. Fam Community Health 24(3):88–103
Carter SM, Shih P, Williams J, Degeling C, Mooney-Somers J (2021) Conducting qualitative research online: challenges and solutions. Patient 14(6):711–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00528-w
Clapper DL, Massey AP (1996) Electronic focus groups: a framework for exploration. Inf Manag 30(1):43–50
Collins KMT, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB (2012) Securing a place at the table: a review and extension of legitimation criteria for the conduct of mixed research. Am Behav Sci 56(6):849–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433799
Council E (2022). The general data protection regulation. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/data-protection/data-protection-regulation/
Creswell JW, Poth CN (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications
Daniels N, Gillen P, Casson K, Wilson I (2019) STEER: factors to consider when designing online focus groups using audiovisual technology in health research. Int J Qual Methods 18:1609406919885786
Davies L, LeClair KL, Bagley P, Blunt H, Hinton L, Ryan S, Ziebland S (2020) Face-to-face compared with online collected accounts of health and illness experiences: a scoping review. Qual Health Res 30(13):2092–2102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320935835
Eynon R, Fry J, Schroeder R (2017) The ethics of online research. The SAGE handbook of online research methods 2:19–37
Fàbregues S, Molina-Azorín JF (2017) Addressing quality in mixed methods research: a review and recommendations for a future agenda. Qual Quant 51(6):2847–2863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0449-4
Flynn R, Albrecht L, Scott SD (2018) Two approaches to focus group data collection for qualitative health research: maximizing resources and data quality. Int J Qual Methods 17(1):1609406917750781
Fox FE, Morris M, Rumsey N (2007) Doing synchronous online focus groups with young people: methodological reflections. Qual Health Res 17(4):539–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306298754
Franzke AS, Bechmann A, Ess CM, Zimmer M (2020). Internet research: ethical guidelines 3.0. Accessed online at https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
Galloway KL (2011) Focus groups in the virtual world: implications for the future of evaluation. New Dir Eval 2011(131):47–51
Gratton M-F, O’Donnell S (2011) Communication technologies for focus groups with remote communities: a case study of research with First Nations in Canada. Qual Res 11(2):159–175
Greenbaum T (2002) The case against Internet focus groups. MRA Alert Newsletter, 40(4). Accessed online at https://groupsplus.com/pages/case2.htm
Guest G, Namey EE, Mitchell ML (2013). Collecting qualitative data: a field manual for applied research. Sage
Hadi MA, José Closs S (2016) Ensuring rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative research in clinical pharmacy. Int J Clin Pharm 38(3):641–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0237-6
Hammersley M (2007) The issue of quality in qualitative research. Int J Res Method Educ 30(3):287–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270701614782
Hasan J (2012) Effective telemedicine project in Bangladesh: special focus on diabetes health care delivery in a tertiary care in Bangladesh. Telemat Inform 29(2):211–218
Hatten J, Christensen L, Liu K, Goldstone L, & Thurlow, M (2014) Elements of successful online asynchronous text-based discussions. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 803–809). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Holloway I (2005). Qualitative research in health care. McGraw-Hill Education, UK
Kaihlanen AM, Virtanen L, Buchert U, Safarov N, Valkonen P, Hietapakka L, Horhammer I, Kujala S, Kouvonen A, Heponiemi T (2022) Towards digital health equity - a qualitative study of the challenges experienced by vulnerable groups in using digital health services in the COVID-19 era. BMC Health Serv Res 22(1):188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07584-4
Kite J, Phongsavan P (2017) Insights for conducting real-time focus groups online using a web conferencing service. F1000Res 6:122. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10427.1
Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn 16(1):103–121
Krueger RA (2014). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage publications
Lehoux P, Poland B, Daudelin G (2006) Focus group research and “the patient’s view”. Soc Sci Med 63(8):2091–2104
Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Vol. 75. Sage Thousand Oaks, CA
Lobe B, Morgan D, Hoffman KA (2020) Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. Int J Qual Methods 19:1609406920937875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920937875
Lobe B, Morgan DL, Hoffman K (2022) A systematic comparison of in-person and video-based online interviewing. Int J Qual Methods 21:16094069221127068
Lobe B (2017) Best practices for synchronous online focus groups. In R. S. Barbour & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A new era in focus group research: Challenges, innovation and practice (pp. 227–250). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58614-8_11
Lucendo-Monedero AL, Ruiz-Rodríguez F, González-Relaño R (2019) Measuring the digital divide at regional level. A spatial analysis of the inequalities in digital development of households and individuals in Europe. Telemat Inform 41:197–217
Mann C, Stewart F (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: a handbook for researching online. Sage
Marhefka S, Lockhart E, Turner D (2020) Achieve research continuity during social distancing by rapidly implementing individual and group videoconferencing with participants: key considerations, best practices, and protocols. AIDS Behav 24(7):1983–1989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-02837-x
Matthews KL, Baird M, Duchesne G (2018) Using online meeting software to facilitate geographically dispersed focus groups for health workforce research. Qual Health Res 28(10):1621–1628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318782167
Mays N, Pope C (2000) Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 320(7226):50. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50
McLafferty I (2004) Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. J Adv Nurs 48(2):187–194
Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ (2016) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. 4th ed. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
Merriam SB (1998) Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from"case study research in education.". Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
Moltu C, Stefansen J, Svisdahl M, Veseth M (2012) Negotiating the coresearcher mandate–service users’ experiences of doing collaborative research on mental health. Disabil Rehabil 34(19):1608–1616
Morgan DL (1997). The focus group guidebook, Vol. 1. Sage Publications
Morgan DL (2018). Basic and advanced focus groups. Sage Publications
Morgan DL, Lobe B (2011) Online focus groups. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), The handbook of emergent technologies in social research (pp. 199–230). Oxford University Press Oxford, United Kingdom
Morgan DL, Morgan S (1993). Successful focus groups: advancing the state of the art, Vol. 156. Sage
Morrison D, Lichtenwald K, Tang R (2020) Extending the online focus group method using web-based conferencing to explore older adults online learning. Int J Res Method Educ 43(1):78–92
Mukhalalati B, Awaisu A (2019). Principles, paradigms, and application of qualitative research in pharmacy practice. Elsevier
Murray PJ (1997) Using virtual focus groups in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 7(4):542–549
Namey E, Guest G, O’Regan A, Godwin CL, Taylor J, Martinez A (2020) How does mode of qualitative data collection affect data and cost? Findings from a quasi-experimental study. Field Methods 32(1):58–74
Neville S, Adams J, Cook C (2016) Using internet-based approaches to collect qualitative data from vulnerable groups: reflections from the field. Contemp Nurse 52(6):657–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2015.1095056
Nicholas DB, Lach L, King G, Scott M, Boydell K, Sawatzky BJ, Reisman J, Schippel E, Young NL (2010) Contrasting internet and face-to-face focus groups for children with chronic health conditions: outcomes and participant experiences. Int J Qual Methods 9(1):105–121
O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA (2014) Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med 89(9):1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000388
Pocock T, Smith M, Wiles J (2021) Recommendations for virtual qualitative health research during a pandemic. Qual Health Res 31(13):2403–2413. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323211036891
Remesh (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on research. Accessed online athttps://www.esomar.org/uploads/public/library/documents/miscellaneous/Remesh_MRX-Conversation_Impact-of-COVID-19-on-Research.pdf
Roberts LD (2015) Ethical issues in conducting qualitative research in online communities. Qual Res Psychol 12(3):314–325
Robinson L, Cotten SR, Ono H, Quan-Haase A, Mesch G, Chen W, Schulz J, Hale TM, Stern MJ (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Inf Commun Soc 18(5):569–582
Rolfe G (2006) Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. J Adv Nurs 53(3):304–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x
Rolls K, Hansen M, Jackson D, Elliott D (2016) Why we belong-exploring membership of healthcare professionals in an intensive care virtual community via online focus groups: rationale and protocol. JMIR Res Protoc 5(2):e99
Rolls K, Kowal D, Elliott D, Burrell AR (2008) Building a statewide knowledge network for clinicians in intensive care units: knowledge brokering and the NSW Intensive Care Coordination and Monitoring Unit (ICCMU. Australian Critical Care 21(1):29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2007.10.003
Rupert DJ, Poehlman JA, Hayes JJ, Ray SE, Moultrie RR (2017) Virtual versus in-person focus groups: comparison of costs, recruitment, and participant logistics. J Med Internet Res 19(3):e80. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6980
Salmon G (2013). E-tivities: the key to active online learning. Routledge
Salmons J (2016) Organizing, analyzing, and interpreting data. SAGE Publications Limited. Stewart H, Gap R, Harwood I (2017) Exploring the alchemy of qualitative management research: Seeking trustworthiness, credibility and rigor through crystallization. Qual Rep 22(1), 1–19
Salmons J (2012) Designing and conducting research with online interviews. In J. Salmons (Ed.), Cases in online interview research (pp. 1–30). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335155
Santiago-Delefosse M, Gavin A, Bruchez C, Roux P, Stephen SL (2016) Quality of qualitative research in the health sciences: analysis of the common criteria present in 58 assessment guidelines by expert users. Soc Sci Med 148:142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.007
Schneider SJ, Kerwin J, Frechtling J, Vivari BA (2002) Characteristics of the discussion in online and face-to-face focus groups. Soc Sci Comput Rev 20(1):31–42
Sedgwick M, Spiers J (2009) The use of videoconferencing as a medium for the qualitative interview. Int J Qual Methods 8(1):1–11
Smith T (2014) Experiences of therapists and occupational therapy students using video conferencing in conduction of focus groups. Qual Rep, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1233
Stewart K, Williams M (2005) Researching online populations: the use of online focus groups for social research. Qual Res 5(4):395–416
Stewart H, Gapp R, Harwood I (2017) Exploring the alchemy of qualitative management research: seeking trustworthiness, credibility and rigor through crystallization. Qual Rep 22(1):1–19
Sweet, C (2001). Designing and conducting virtual focus groups. Qual Market Res: Int J 4:130–135
Synnot A, Hill S, Summers M, Taylor M (2014) Comparing face-to-face and online qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis. Qual Health Res 24(3):431–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314523840
Thrul J, Belohlavek A, Hambrick D, Kaur M, Ramo DE (2017) Conducting online focus groups on Facebook to inform health behavior change interventions: two case studies and lessons learned. Internet Interv 9:106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2017.07.005
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19(6):349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Turney L, Pocknee C (2005) Virtual focus groups: new frontiers in research. Int J Qual Methods 4(2):32–43
Tuttas CA (2015a) Job integration factors as predictors of travel nurse job performance: a mixed-methods study. J Nurs Care Qual 30(1):44–52
Tuttas CA (2015b) Lessons learned using Web conference technology for online focus group interviews. Qual Health Res 25(1):122–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314549602
Wakefield BJ, Buresh KA, Flanagan JR, Kienzle MG (2004) Interactive video specialty consultations in long-term care. J Am Geriatr Soc 52(5):789–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52220.x
Weiner DL, Balasubramaniam V, Shah SI, Javier JR, Pediatric Policy C (2020) COVID-19 impact on research, lessons learned from COVID-19 research, implications for pediatric research. Pediatr Res 88(2):148–150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-1006-3
Weller S (2017) Using internet video calls in qualitative (longitudinal) interviews: some implications for rapport. Int J Soc Res Methodol 20(6):613–625
Whitehead LC (2007) Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: an integrated review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 65(4):782–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.005
Wilkerson JM, Iantaffi A, Grey JA, Bockting WO, Rosser BR (2014) Recommendations for internet-based qualitative health research with hard-to-reach populations. Qual Health Res 24(4):561–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314524635
Williams S, Clausen MG, Robertson A, Peacock S, McPherson K (2012) Methodological reflections on the use of asynchronous online focus groups in health research. Int J Qual Methods 11(4):368–383
Williams SN, Armitage CJ, Tampe T, Dienes K (2020) Public perceptions and experiences of social distancing and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a UK-based focus group study. BMJ Open 10(7):e039334. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039334
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Qatar University: Qatar University Emergency Response Grant [grant number: QUERG-CHS-2020-1].
Funding
Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, drafted and revised the manuscript, and approved it for publication. All authors are accountable for all aspects of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bawadi, H., Elshami, S., Awaisu, A. et al. A review of technical and quality assessment considerations of audio-visual and web-conferencing focus groups in qualitative health research. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10, 563 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01989-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01989-0
- Springer Nature Limited