Online focus group discussions provide an anonymous environment to assess sensitive, health-related experiences that may be difficult to discuss utilizing traditional face-to-face modalities, particularly for marginalized populations such as female-to-male trans masculine (TM) transgender individuals. This article reviews the history, advantages, and disadvantages of online focus groups, with an emphasis for research about sensitive issues with stigmatized, rare, and/or geographically dispersed patient populations. The article then evaluates the success of online focus group discussions as a case study using data from four asynchronous online focus groups conducted between September 2015 and February 2016 that explored topics related to sexual health care access with U.S. TM adults (N = 29). The rationale for selecting an asynchronous online methodology is described along with the unique methodological considerations that emerged in developing the study protocol. We conclude by sharing lessons learned, including innovations for maximizing participant engagement and comfort to elicit rich qualitative data.
AbramsK. M.WangZ.SongY. J.Galindo-GonzalezS. (2014). Data richness trade-offs between face-to-face, online audiovisual, and online text-only focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 80–96.
2.
AgénorM.PeitzmeierS. M.BernsteinI. M.McDowellM.AlizagaN. M.ReisnerS. L.. . . PotterJ. (2016). Perceptions of cervical cancer risk and screening among transmasculine individuals: Patient and provider perspectives. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 1–15.
3.
AsburyJ.-E. (1995). Overview of focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 414–420.
4.
BloorM. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage.
5.
CareyM. A.SmithM. W. (1994). Capturing the group effect in focus groups: A special concern in analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 4, 123–127.
6.
DenscombeR. (2003). The good research guide (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
7.
DeutschM. B.RadixA.ReisnerS. (2016). What’s in a guideline? Developing collaborative and sound research designs that substantiate best practice recommendations for transgender health care. AMA Journal of Ethics, 18, 1098–1106.
8.
DuBoisL. Z.MacapagalK. R.RiveraZ.PrescottT. L.YbarraM. L.MustanskiB. (2015). To have sex or not to have sex? An online focus group study of sexual decision making among sexually experienced and inexperienced gay and bisexual adolescent men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 2027–2040.
9.
DugglebyW. (2005). What about focus group interaction data?Qualitative Health Research, 15, 832–840.
10.
DuttonL.KoenigK.FennieK. (2008). Gynecologic care of the female-to-male transgender man. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 53, 331–337.
11.
FoxF. E.MorrisM.RumseyN. (2007). Doing synchronous online focus groups with young people methodological reflections. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 539–547.
12.
GauthierD. K.ChaudoirN. K. (2004). Tranny boyz: Cyber community support in negotiating sex and gender mobility among female to male transsexuals. Deviant Behavior, 25, 375–398.
GradyH. (2000, November). Virtual focus group: A methodological assessment. Paper presented at the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Convention, Chicago, IL.
15.
GraffignaG.BosioA. C. (2006). The influence of setting on findings produced in qualitative health research: A comparison between face-to-face and online discussion groups about HIV/AIDS. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 55–76.
16.
HillierL.MitchellK. J.YbarraM. L. (2012). The Internet as a safety net: Findings from a series of online focus groups with LGB and non-LGB young people in the United States. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9, 225–246.
17.
HiltzS. R.JohnsonK.TuroffM. (1986). Experiments in group decision making communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225–252.
18.
HineC. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
19.
ImE.-O.CheeW. (2003). Feminist issues in e-mail group discussion among cancer patients. Advances in Nursing Science, 26, 287–298.
20.
KennyA. J. (2005). Interaction in cyberspace: An online focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49, 414–422.
21.
KitzingerJ. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16, 103–121.
22.
KitzingerJ. (2007). Focus groups. In PopeC.MaysN. (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Health Care (3rd ed., pp. 21–31). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
23.
KruegerR. A.CaseyM. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. New Delhi, India: Sage.
24.
MageeJ. C.BigelowL.DeHaanS.MustanskiB. S. (2012). Sexual health information seeking online a mixed-methods study among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender young people. Health Education & Behavior, 39, 276–289.
25.
MannC.StewartF. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage.
26.
MarkhamA. N. (1998). Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space (Vol. 6). Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira.
27.
MatthewsJ.CramerE. P. (2008). Using technology to enhance qualitative research with hidden populations. Qualitative Report, 13, 301–315.
28.
McDowellM.PardeeD. J.PeitzmeierS. M.ReisnerS. L.AgénorM.AlizagaN. M.PotterJ.Cervical cancer screening preferences among trans masculine individuals: Patient-collected human papillomavirus vaginal swabs versus provider-administered Pap tests. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29.
MillerR. L.BrewerJ. D. (2003). The AZ of social research: A dictionary of key social science research concepts. London: Sage.
30.
MitchellK. J.YbarraM. L.KorchmarosJ. D.KosciwJ. G. (2014). Accessing sexual health information online: Use, motivations and consequences for youth with different sexual orientations. Health Education Research, 29, 147–157.
31.
MoloneyM. F.DietrichA. S.StricklandO.MyerburgS. (2003). Using Internet discussion boards as virtual focus groups. Advances in Nursing Science, 26, 274–286.
32.
MurrayP. J. (1997). Using virtual focus groups in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 7, 542–549.
33.
MustanskiB.LyonsT.GarciaS. C. (2011). Internet use and sexual health of young men who have sex with men: A mixed-methods study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 289–300.
34.
O’ConnorH.MadgeC. (2003). “Focus groups in cyberspace”: Using the Internet for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6, 133–143.
35.
PeitzmeierS. M.AgénorM.BernsteinI.McDowellM.AlizagaN. M.ReisnerS. L.PotterJ. “It can promote an existential crisis”: Factors influencing Pap test acceptability and utilization among transmasculine individuals. Manuscript submitted for publication.
36.
PeitzmeierS. M.KhullarK.ReisnerS. L.PotterJ. (2014). Pap test use is lower among female-to-male patients than non-transgender women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 47, 808–812.
37.
PeitzmeierS. M.ReisnerS. L.HarigopalP.PotterJ. (2014). Female-to-male patients have high prevalence of unsatisfactory paps compared to non-transgender females: Implications for cervical cancer screening. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 29, 778–784.
38.
Perez-BrumerA. G.OldenburgC. E.ReisnerS. L.ClarkJ. L.ParkerR. G. (2016). Towards “reflexive epidemiology”: Conflation of cisgender male and transgender women sex workers and implications for global understandings of HIV prevalence. Global Public Health, 11, 849–865.
39.
PoteatT.GermanD.KerriganD. (2013). Managing uncertainty: A grounded theory of stigma in transgender health care encounters. Social Science and Medicine, 84, 22–29.
40.
PotterJ.PeitzmeierS. M.BernsteinI.ReisnerS. L.AlizagaN. M.AgénorM.PardeeD. J. (2015). Cervical cancer screening for patients on the female-to-male spectrum: a narrative review and guide for clinicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30, 1857–1864.
41.
PrescottT. L.PhillipsI. I. G.DuBoisL. Z.BullS. S.MustanskiB.YbarraM. L. (2016). Reaching adolescent gay, bisexual, and queer men online: Development and refinement of a national recruitment strategy. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(8), e200.
42.
ReidD. J.ReidF. J. (2005). Online focus groups. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 131–162.
43.
ReisnerS. L.ConronK. J.ScoutN.MimiagaM. J.HaneuseS.AustinS. B. (2014). Comparing in-person and online survey respondents in the U.S. National Transgender Discrimination Survey: Implications for transgender health. LGBT Health, 1, 98–106.
44.
ReisnerS. L.PerkovichB.MimiagaM. J. (2010). A mixed methods study of the sexual health needs of New England transmen who have sex with nontransgender men. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 24, 501–513.
45.
ReisnerS. L.White HughtoJ. M.DunhamE. E.HeflinK. J.BegenyiJ. B.Coffey-EsquivelJ.CahillS. (2015). Legal protections in public accommodations settings: A critical public health issue for transgender and gender-nonconforming people. Milbank Quarterly, 93(3), 484–515.
46.
ReisnerS. L.WhiteJ. M.BradfordJ.MimiagaM. J. (2014). Transgender health disparities: Comparing full cohort and nested matched-pair study designs in a community health center. LGBT Health, 1, 177–184.
47.
SchneiderS. J.KerwinJ.FrechtlingJ.VivariB. A. (2002). Characteristics of the discussion in online and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 31–42.
48.
SeymourW. S. (2001). In the flesh or online? Exploring qualitative research methodologies. Qualitative Research, 1, 147–168.
49.
StancanelliJ. (2010). Conducting an online focus group. The Qualitative Report, 15, 761–765.
50.
StewartK.WilliamsM. (2005). Researching online populations: The use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research, 5, 395–416.
51.
StricklandO. L.MoloneyM. F.DietrichA. S.MyerburgS.CotsonisG. A.JohnsonR. V. (2003). Measurement issues related to data collection on the World Wide Web. Advances in Nursing Science, 26, 246–256.
52.
TatesK.ZwaanswijkM.OttenR.van DulmenS.HoogerbruggeP. M.KampsW. A.. . . BensingJ. M. (2009). Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: Examples from paediatric oncology. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 15.
53.
ThomasC.WoottenA.RobinsonP. (2013). The experiences of gay and bisexual men diagnosed with prostate cancer: Results from an online focus group. European Journal of Cancer Care, 22, 522–529.
54.
TurneyL.PockneeC. (2005). Virtual focus groups: New frontiers in research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4, 32–43.
55.
TuttasC. A. (2014). Lessons learned using Web conference technology for online focus group interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 25, 122–133.
56.
UnderhillC.OlmstedM. G. (2003). An experimental comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 506–512.
WaltherJ. B.BurgoonJ. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50–88.
59.
WatsonM.PeacockS.JonesD. (2006). The analysis of interaction in online focus groups. International Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation, 13, 551–557.
60.
White HughtoJ. M.HidalgoA.BazziA.ReisnerS.MimiagaM. (2016). Indicators of HIV-risk resilience among men who have sex with men: A content analysis of online profiles. Sexual Health, 13, 436–443.
61.
White HughtoJ. M.MurchisonG.ClarkK.PachankisJ. E.ReisnerS. L. (2016). Geographic and individual differences in healthcare access for U.S. transgender adults: A multilevel analysis. LGBT Health, 3, 424–433.
62.
White HughtoJ. M.PachankisJ. E.EldahanA. I.KeeneD. E. (2016). “You can’t just walk down the street and meet someone”: The intersection of social-sexual networking technology, stigma, and health among gay and bisexual men in the small city. American Journal of Men’s Health. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1557988316679563
63.
White HughtoJ. M.ReisnerS. L.PachankisJ. E. (2015). Transgender stigma and health: A critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions. Social Science & Medicine, 147, 222–231.
64.
WilliamsS.ClausenM. G.RobertsonA.PeacockS.McPhersonK. (2012). Methodological reflections on the use of asynchronous online focus groups in health research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11, 368–383.
65.
WoodyattC. R.FinneranC. A.StephensonR. (2016). In-person versus online focus group discussions: A comparative analysis of data quality. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 741–749.
66.
YbarraM. L.DuBoisL. Z.ParsonsJ. T.PrescottT. L.MustanskiB. (2014). Online focus groups as an HIV prevention program for gay, bisexual, and queer adolescent males. AIDS Education and Prevention, 26, 554–564.
67.
YbarraM. L.MitchellK. J.PalmerN. A.ReisnerS. L. (2015). Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among US LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 123–136.
68.
YuJ.TavernerN.MaddenK. (2011). Young people’s views on sharing health-related stories on the Internet. Health & Social Care in the Community, 19, 326–334.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
