IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v63y2006i8p2091-2104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Focus group research and "the patient's view"

Author

Listed:
  • Lehoux, Pascale
  • Poland, Blake
  • Daudelin, Genevieve

Abstract

A clear emphasis on the patient's view is discernible in the health services research literature of the past decades. Such a switch to patients' perspectives has been greatly facilitated by a wider acceptance and use of qualitative methods. In particular, focus groups are often used to uncover the range and depth of experiences of health services users and chronically ill individuals. Although this method contributes to a better understanding of patients' perspectives and practices, a number of analytical considerations have been overlooked. The aim of this paper is to consider how to conceptualise and analyse interactions in focus group research. We argue that focus groups are social spaces in which participants co-construct the "patient's view" by sharing, contesting and acquiring knowledge. Focus groups conducted with home care patients in Quebec, Canada (on antibiotic intravenous therapy, parenteral nutrition, peritoneal dialysis and oxygen therapy) are used to illustrate three interactive processes at work in focus groups: (1) establishing oneself as experienced and knowledgeable; (2) establishing oneself as in search of information and advice; and (3) validating or challenging one another's knowledge claims. We develop an analytical template focused on the subtle dynamics underpinning the various and at times competing claims of patients. This template acknowledges the processes through which participants attribute authority to the claims of others, including the focus group moderator. We find that focus group research does not derive epistemological authority simply from the identity of its participants. Rather, an emerging consensus about what constitutes the patient's view is the result of context-dependent social interactions that need to be scrutinised.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:8:p:2091-2104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(06)00272-3
    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. Caron-Flinterman, J. Francisca & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W. & Bunders, Joske F.G., 2005. "The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 2575-2584, June.
    2. Fox, N.J. & Ward, K.J. & O'Rourke, A.J., 2005. "The 'expert patient': empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1299-1309, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Gabe, Jonathan & Bury, Michael & Ramsay, Rosemary, 2002. "Living with asthma: the experiences of young people at home and at school," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(9), pages 1619-1633, November.
    5. Sullivan, Mark, 2003. "The new subjective medicine: taking the patient's point of view on health care and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1595-1604, April.
    6. Lawton, Julia & Peel, Elizabeth & Parry, Odette & Araoz, Gonzalo & Douglas, Margaret, 2005. "Lay perceptions of type 2 diabetes in Scotland: bringing health services back in," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1423-1435, April.
    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. Dako-Gyeke, Mavis & Kodom, Richard Baffo & Dankyi, Ernestina K. & Sulemana, Alhassan, 2020. "Drivers of independent migration among adolescents from selected West African countries," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    2. Goven, Joanna, 2008. "Assessing genetic testing: Who are the "lay experts"?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Schuster, Roseanne C. & Brewis, Alexandra & Wutich, Amber & Safi, Christelle & Vanrespaille, Teresa Elegido & Bowen, Gina & SturtzSreetharan, Cindi & McDaniel, Anne & Ochandarena, Peggy, 2023. "Individual interviews versus focus groups for evaluations of international development programs: Systematic testing of method performance to elicit sensitive information in a justice study in Haiti," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Andiç, Esen & Yurt, Öznur & Baltacıoğlu, Tunçdan, 2012. "Green supply chains: Efforts and potential applications for the Turkish market," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 50-68.
    5. Rees, Charlotte E. & Knight, Lynn V. & Wilkinson, Clare E., 2007. "Doctors being up there and we being down here: A metaphorical analysis of talk about student/doctor-patient relationships," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 725-737, August.
    6. Mavis Dako-Gyeke, 2016. "Exploring the Migration Intentions of Ghanaian Youth: A Qualitative Study," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 723-744, August.

    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. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    2. Ziewitz, Malte, 2017. "Experience in action: Moderating care in web-based patient feedback," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 99-108.
    3. Stockl, Andrea, 2007. "Complex syndromes, ambivalent diagnosis, and existential uncertainty: The case of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 1549-1559, October.
    4. Prior, Lindsay & Evans, Meirion R. & Prout, Hayley, 2011. "Talking about colds and flu: The lay diagnosis of two common illnesses among older British people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(6), pages 922-928, September.
    5. Philippe Batifoulier & John Latsis & Jacques Merchiers, 2010. "Les priorités de la prise en charge financière des soins. Une approche par la philosophie du besoin," EconomiX Working Papers 2010-2, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    6. Christen, Regula Nelly & Alder, Judith & Bitzer, Johannes, 2008. "Gender differences in physicians' communicative skills and their influence on patient satisfaction in gynaecological outpatient consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 1474-1483, April.
    7. Chandwani, Rajesh & Edacherian, Saneesh & Sud, Mukesh, 2019. "Whose Empowerment? National Digital Infrastructure and India’s Healthcare sector," IIMA Working Papers WP 2019-02-01, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    8. Kirk, Susan, 2010. "How children and young people construct and negotiate living with medical technology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1796-1803, November.
    9. Adams, Samantha A., 2011. "Sourcing the crowd for health services improvement: The reflexive patient and "share-your-experience" websites," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1069-1076, April.
    10. Bernardi, Roberta & Wu, Philip F., 2022. "Online health communities and the patient-doctor relationship: An institutional logics perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    11. Natasa Sedlar & Mitja Lainscak & Jerneja Farkas, 2020. "Living with Chronic Heart Failure: Exploring Patient, Informal Caregiver, and Healthcare Professional Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-16, April.
    12. Murali Sundaram & Jan Kavookjian & Julie Patrick, 2009. "Health-Related Quality of Life and Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(2), pages 121-133, June.
    13. Miguel García-Martín & Carmen Amezcua-Prieto & Bassel H Al Wattar & Jan Stener Jørgensen & Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas & Khalid Saeed Khan, 2020. "Patient and Public Involvement in Sexual and Reproductive Health: Time to Properly Integrate Citizen’s Input into Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-12, October.
    14. Eissens van der Laan, M.R. & van Offenbeek, M.A.G. & Broekhuis, H. & Slaets, J.P.J., 2014. "A person-centred segmentation study in elderly care: Towards efficient demand-driven care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 68-76.
    15. Brothers, Sarah, 2019. "A good “doctor” is hard to find: Assessing uncredentialed expertise in assisted injection," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Wyke, Sally & Adamson, Joy & Dixon, Diane & Hunt, Kate, 2013. "Consultation and illness behaviour in response to symptoms: A comparison of models from different disciplinary frameworks and suggestions for future research directions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 79-87.
    17. Cho, Sun Mi & Park, Chan-ung & Song, Min, 2020. "The evolution of social health research topics: A data-driven analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    18. Scavarda, Alice & Ariel Cascio, M., 2022. "Embracing and rejecting the medicalization of autism in Italy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    19. Read, John, 2008. "Schizophrenia, drug companies and the internet," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 99-109, January.
    20. Kuchinskaya, Olga & Parker, Lisa S., 2018. "‘Recurrent losers unite’: Online forums, evidence-based activism, and pregnancy loss," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 74-80.

    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:63:y:2006:i:8:p:2091-2104. 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.