Abstract

BackgroundThe quality of data obtained through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) is highly dependent on appropriate design and facilitation. In low-income settings steep power gradients between researcher and participants, as well as conversational norms, could reduce the ability of participants to voice personal opinions. Activity-oriented exercises have been suggested as a way overcoming these challenges, however little evidence exists - to date - on their use in low-income settings. We selected six exercises for use in Ethiopia and Nigeria and report our experiences.MethodsThe six exercises (picture sorting, associative pictures, picture ranking, decision trees, predictive story-telling and provocative statements) were used in 32 maternal and new-born care themed FGDs conducted in Amhara and Southern Nations Nationalities and People’s Regions (Ethiopia) and Gombe State (Nigeria). Six facilitators and two supervisors who used these exercises were interviewed about their experiences. FGD verbatim transcripts and interview notes were analysed to explore methodological effectiveness and respondents’ experience. All data were coded in NVIVO using a deductive coding frame.ResultsFacilitators and participants described the methods as ‘fun’ and ‘enjoyable’. The exercises yielded more in-depth and complete information than ‘normal’ FGDs, but facilitator’s probing skills and overall FGD group dynamics proved crucial in this success. Explaining and conducting the exercises increased FGD length. Data richness, participant reaction and understanding, and ease of facilitation varied by study site, exercise, and participant group. Overall, the exercises worked better in Nigeria than in Ethiopia. The provocative statement exercise was most difficult for participants to understand, the decision-tree most difficult to facilitate and the picture exercises most enjoyable. The story telling exercise took relatively little time, was well understood, yielded rich data and reduced social desirability bias.DiscussionThe majority of the exercises proved successful tools in yielding richer and less biased information from FGDs and were experienced as fun and engaging. Tailoring of the exercises, as well as thorough training and selection of the facilitators, were pivotal in this success. The difference in the two countries shows that adequate piloting and adaptation is crucial, and that some exercises may not be adaptable to all settings.

Highlights

  • The quality of data obtained through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) is highly dependent on appropriate design and facilitation

  • The skype or phone interviews and the FGDs were analyzed separately and the main themes and findings were compared. This was bi-directional as we explored whether the findings from the interviews with study staff were reflected in the FGD data as well as exploring if the study staff interviews could explain the results of the FGD analysis

  • The methods were more successful in Nigeria than Ethiopia: this may be related to cultural differences in conversational norms and issues of positionality between facilitator and participants, exemplified by an Ethiopian facilitator describing that participants saw them as an ‘authoritative figure’

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The quality of data obtained through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) is highly dependent on appropriate design and facilitation. Focus group discussions (FGDs) have been used in public health research since the 1990s [1] They aim to explore participants’ experiences, beliefs, and attitudes by using group processes to stimulate responses and gain insights through participants exchanging views, and questioning and challenging each other [1,2,3,4,5]. We have used focus groups in Ghana for over 15 years, and have had difficulty making FGDs interactive, with both facilitators and participants seemingly more comfortable with group interviews Over this time we noticed that the level of participant-participant interaction increased during activity oriented exercise, a similar experience reported by researchers in Tanzania [7]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call