Videoconferencing focus groups have emerged as a popular method for collecting qualitative data. However, its use in sexual and reproductive health research is still very much in its infancy. Based on participants’ feedback and researchers’ reflections on using videoconferencing focus groups to collect sexual and reproductive health data with 39 heterosexual and non-heterosexual Chinese im/migrants in Australia, we discuss some of the key lessons learned, and considerations involved in shifting from face-to-face to online focus groups. Overall, videoconferencing focus groups appeared to be a highly feasible and acceptable way to discuss “sensitive” topics with Chinese im/migrants. Importantly, researchers need to be both creative and reflexive during the research process and must not forget that the success of a study lies not only in troubleshooting technical issues but also in cultivating and maintaining a trusting relationship with research participants.
AbramsK. M.GaiserT. J. (2017). Online focus groups. In FieldingN. G.LeeR. M.BlankG. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 435–450). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957992.n25
2.
AbramsK. M.WangZ.SongY. J.Galindo-GonzalezS. (2015). Data richness trade-offs between face-to-face, online audiovisual, and online text-only focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313519733
3.
AhmedA.VandrevalaT.HendyJ.KellyC.AlaA. (2019). An examination of how to engage migrants in the research process: Building trust through an “insider” perspective. Ethnicity & Health, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2019.1685651
4.
ArbeitM. R.FisherC. B.MacapagalK.MustanskiB. (2016). Bisexual invisibility and the sexual health needs of adolescent girls. LGBT Health, 3(5), 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2016.0035
5.
ArchibaldM. M.AmbagtsheerR. C.CaseyM. G.LawlessM. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596
BrüggenE.WillemsP. (2009). A critical comparison of offline focus groups, online focus groups and e-Delphi. International Journal of Market Research, 51(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530905100301
11.
CameronK. A.SalazarL. F.BernhardtJ. M.Burgess-WhitmanN.WingoodG. M.DiClementeR. J. (2005). Adolescents’ experience with sex on the web: Results from online focus groups. Journal of Adolescence, 28(4), 535–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.10.006
12.
CastañedaH. (2010). Im/migration and health: Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical propositions for applied anthropology. Napa Bulletin, 34(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4797.2010.01049.x
13.
CastelliF. R.SarvaryM. A. (2021). Why students do not turn on their video cameras during online classes and an equitable and inclusive plan to encourage them to do so. Ecology and Evolution, 11(8), 3565–3576. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7123
14.
ChenC.LeeP.-I.PainK. J.DelgadoD.ColeC. L.CampionT. R.Jr. (2020). Replacing paper informed consent with electronic informed consent for research in academic medical centers: A scoping review. AMIA Summits on Translational Science Proceedings, 2020, 80–88.
15.
ChongE.Alayli-GoebbelsA.Webel-EdgarL.MuirS.MansonH. (2015). Advancing telephone focus groups method through the use of webinar: Methodological reflections on evaluating Ontario, Canada’s healthy babies healthy children program. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393615607840
16.
Dangerfield IiD. T.WylieC.AndersonJ. N. (2021). Conducting virtual, synchronous focus groups among Black sexual minority men: Qualitative study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 7(2), Article e22980. https://doi.org/10.2196/22980
17.
DanielsN.GillenP.CassonK.WilsonI. (2019). STEER: Factors to consider when designing online focus groups using audiovisual technology in health research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919885786
18.
DaviesL.LeClairK. L.BagleyP.BluntH.HintonL.RyanS.ZieblandS. (2020). Face-to-face compared with online collected accounts of health and illness experiences: A scoping review. Qualitative Health Research, 30(13), 2092–2102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320935835
19.
DoornwaardS. M.den BoerF.VanwesenbeeckI.van NijnattenC. H.Ter BogtT. F.van den EijndenR. J. (2017). Dutch adolescents’ motives, perceptions, and reflections toward sex-related internet use: Results of a web-based focus-group study. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(8), 1038–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1255873
20.
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(7), 2027–2040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0521-5
21.
DuboisS.BoutinM.SankoffD. (1996). The quantitative analysis of turntaking in multiparticipant conversations. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 3(1), Article 20.
22.
FontenotH. B.CahillS. R.WangT.GeffenS.WhiteB. P.ReisnerS.ConronK.HarperC. R.JohnsM. M.AvripasS. A. (2020). Transgender youth experiences and perspectives related to HIV preventive services. Pediatrics, 145(4), Article e20192204. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2204
23.
FontenotH. B.RosenbergerJ. G.McNairK. T.MayerK. H.ZimetG. (2019). Perspectives and preferences for a mobile health tool designed to facilitate HPV vaccination among young men who have sex with men. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 15(7–8), 1815–1823. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2019.1568156
FrithH. (2000). Focusing on sex: Using focus groups in sex research. Sexualities, 3(3), 275–297.
26.
GetrichC. M.SussmanA. L.Campbell-VoytalK.TsohJ. Y.WilliamsR. L.BrownA. E.PotterM. B.SpearsW.WellerN.PascoeJ. (2013). Cultivating a cycle of trust with diverse communities in practice-based research: A report from PRIME net. The Annals of Family Medicine, 11(6), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1543
27.
GordonA. R.CalzoJ. P.EidusonR.SharpK.SilversteinS.LopezE.ThomsonK.ReisnerS. L. (2021). Asynchronous online focus groups for health research: Case study and lessons learned. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921990489
28.
GrønkjærM.CurtisT.de CrespignyC.DelmarC. (2011). Analysing group interaction in focus group research: Impact on content and the role of the moderator. Qualitative Studies, 2(1), 16–30.
29.
GuilleminM.GillamL.BarnardE.StewartP.WalkerH.RosenthalD. (2016). “Doing trust” how researchers conceptualize and enact trust in their research practice. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(4), 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616668975
30.
HallamK. F. (2021). Moving on from trials and errors: A discussion on the use of a forum as an online focus group in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1888402
31.
HanJ.TorokM.GaleN.WongQ. J.Werner-SeidlerA.HetrickS. E.ChristensenH. (2019). Use of web Conferencing technology for conducting online focus groups among young people with lived experience of suicidal thoughts: Mixed methods research. JMIR Mental Health, 6(10), Article e14191. https://doi.org/10.2196/14191
32.
HarrisC.StrakerL.PollockC. (2017). A socioeconomic related “digital divide” exists in how, not if, young people use computers. PLOS ONE, 12(3), Article e0175011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175011
33.
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(3), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2012.684642
IantaffiA.WilkersonJ. M.GreyJ. A.RosserB. S. (2015). Acceptability of sexually explicit images in HIV prevention messages targeting men who have sex with men. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(10), 1345–1358. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1060066
36.
KiteJ.PhongsavanP. (2017). Insights for conducting real-time focus groups online using a web conferencing service. F1000Research, 6(122), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10427.1
37.
KruegerR. A. (2014). Participants in a focus group. In KruegerR. A.CaseyM. A. (Eds.), Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (pp. 63–84). SAGE.
38.
LallyR. M.EisenhauerC.BucklandS.KupzykK. (2018). Feasibility of synchronous online focus groups of rural breast cancer survivors on web-based distress self-management. Oncology Nursing Forum, 45(6), E111–E124. https://doi.org/10.1188/18.ONF.E111-E124
39.
LaVaccareS.DiamantA. L.FriedmanJ.SinghK. T.BakerJ. A.RodriguezT. A.CohenS. R.DaryF. Y.PreglerJ. (2018). Healthcare experiences of underrepresented lesbian and bisexual women: A focus group qualitative study. Health Equity, 2(1), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2017.0041
40.
LawC. (2019). Men on the margins? Reflections on recruiting and engaging men in reproduction research. Methodological Innovations, 12(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799119829425
41.
LinY.DowellN.GodfreyA.ChoiH.BrooksC. (2019). Modeling gender dynamics in intra and interpersonal interactions during online collaborative learning [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, 4 March – 8 March, Tempe, AZ, U.S.A.
42.
LiuM.StainbackK. (2013). Interviewer gender effects on survey responses to marriage-related questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(2), 606–618. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft019
43.
LiuM.WangY. (2016). Interviewer gender effect on acquiescent response style in 11 Asian countries and societies. Field Methods, 28(4), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X15623755
44.
MatthewsJ.CramerE. P. (2008). Using technology to enhance qualitative research with hidden populations. Qualitative Report, 13(2), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1600
45.
MatthewsK. L.BairdM.DuchesneG. (2018). Using online meeting software to facilitate geographically dispersed focus groups for health workforce research. Qualitative Health Research, 28(10), 1621–1628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318782167
46.
MooreT.McKeeK.McCoughlinP. (2015). Online focus groups and qualitative research in the social sciences: Their merits and limitations in a study of housing and youth. People, Place and Policy, 9(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.3351/ppp.0009.0001.0002
47.
MorrisonD.LichtenwaldK.TangR. (2020). Extending the online focus group method using web-based conferencing to explore older adults online learning. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1594183
48.
NilssonJ.JervaeusA.LampicC.ErikssonL.WidmarkC.ArmuandG.MalmrosJ.Marshall HeymanM.WettergrenL. (2014). “Will I be able to have a baby?”Results from online focus group discussions with childhood cancer survivors in Sweden. Human Reproduction, 29(12), 2704–2711. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu280
ParkerA.TritterJ. (2006). Focus group method and methodology: Current practice and recent debate. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500537304
51.
PerraultE. K.KeatingD. M. (2018). Seeking ways to inform the uninformed: Improving the informed consent process in online social science research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617738846
52.
PerraultE. K.NazioneS. A. (2016). Informed consent–uninformed participants: Shortcomings of online social science consent forms and recommendations for improvement. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(3), 274–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616654610
53.
PolandB.PedersonA. (1998). Reading between the lines: Interpreting silences in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049800400209
54.
PowersJ. D. (2017). The influence of parental communication about sexual health on quality of emerging adult romantic relationships. University of Southern Mississippi. https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/296/
55.
PrescottT. L.PhillipsG.IIDuBoisL. 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), Article e200. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5602
56.
ReisnerS. L.RandazzoR. K.White HughtoJ. M.PeitzmeierS.DuBoisL. Z.PardeeD. J.MarrowE.McLeanS.PotterJ. (2018). Sensitive health topics with underserved patient populations: Methodological considerations for online focus group discussions. Qualitative Health Research, 28(10), 1658–1673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317705355
57.
RichardB.SivoS.OrlowskiM.FordR.MurphyJ.BooteD.WittaE. (2018). Online focus groups: A valuable alternative for hospitality research?International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(11), 3715–3191. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2017-0715
58.
RichtersJ.BadcockP. B.SimpsonJ. M.ShellardD.RisselC.De VisserR. O.GrulichA. E.SmithA. M. (2014). Design and methods of the second Australian Study of Health and Relationships. Sexual Health, 11(5), 383–396.
59.
RupertD. J.PoehlmanJ. A.HayesJ. J.RayS. E.MoultrieR. R. (2017). Virtual versus in-person focus groups: Comparison of costs, recruitment, and participant logistics. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(3), Article e80. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6980
60.
SixsmithJ.BonehamM.GoldringJ. E. (2003). Accessing the community: Gaining insider perspectives from the outside. Qualitative Health Research, 13(4), 578–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302250759
61.
SkeltonK.EvansR.LaChenayeJ.AmsbaryJ.WingateM.TalbottL. (2018). Utilization of online focus groups to include mothers: A use-case design, reflection, and recommendations. Digital Health, 4, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207618777675
62.
SlevV. N.PasmanH. R. W.EeltinkC. M.van Uden-KraanC. F.Verdonck-de LeeuwI. M.FranckeA. L. (2017). Self-management support and eHealth for patients and informal caregivers confronted with advanced cancer: An online focus group study among nurses. BMC Palliative Care, 16(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-017-0238-4
63.
SmithA. M.RisselC. E.RichtersJ.GrulichA. E.De VisserR. O. (2003). Sex in Australia: Sexual identity, sexual attraction and sexual experience among a representative sample of adults. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 27(2), 138–145.
StewartK.WilliamsM. (2005). Researching online populations: The use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105056916
66.
StoverC. M. (2012). The use of online synchronous focus groups in a sample of lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 30(8), 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1097/NXN.0b013e3182636921
67.
Survey Research Center. (2016). Guidelines for best practice in cross-cultural surveys. Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. http://ccsg.isr.umich.edu/
68.
TannenD. (1995). The power of talk: Who gets heard and why. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 138–148.
69.
TimmermansS.TavoryI. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
70.
TsaiM.-J.LiangJ.-C.HouH.-T.TsaiC.-C. (2015). Males are not as active as females in online discussion: Gender differences in face-to-face and online discussion strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1557
71.
TuttasC. A. (2015a). Job integration factors as predictors of travel nurse job performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 30(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000070
72.
TuttasC. A. (2015b). Lessons learned using web conference technology for online focus group interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 25(1), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314549602
73.
VarnhagenC. K.GushtaM.DanielsJ.PetersT. C.ParmarN.LawD.HirschR.Sadler TakachB.JohnsonT. (2005). How informed is online informed consent?Ethics & Behavior, 15(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1501_3
74.
WirtzA. L.CooneyE. E.ChaudhryA.ReisnerS. L. (2019). Computer-mediated communication to facilitate synchronous online focus group discussions: Feasibility study for qualitative HIV research among transgender women across the United States. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(3), Article e12569. https://doi.org/10.2196/12569
75.
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(6), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2014.26.6.554
76.
YbarraM. L.ParrillaJ. S.WolowicJ.RosarioM.GoodenowC.SaewycE. (2020). A national, qualitative study of sexual decision making by teenage girls who are Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or who have another nonheterosexual identity. The Journal of Pediatrics, 217, 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.10.038
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.
