Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Qualitative methodology is key to understanding the lived experience of people with acquired brain injury (ABI). However, as demonstrated during the global pandemic (COVID-19), face-to-face interviewing is not always viable. This lack of availability has been particularly relevant for people with disability who are at increased risk of contracting the virus and experiencing poorer outcomes. Fortunately, advancing technologies provide increasing opportunities for communicating online, thus it is plausible for qualitative disability researchers to adapt to remote interviewing. People with ABI often experience varying degrees of cognitive and communication impairments and therefore require specific considerations in the planning of research projects. In this paper, we examine learnings from existing literature around online qualitative research, specifically for videoconference, focus groups and email-interviewing methods. The key aim is to map out the practical, ethical and methodological considerations when adapting research to an online environment. As interviewing people with ABI online has received little attention in the literature, learnings from broader disability populations and the general population inform much of the considerations. Thus, the suggestions for practice are likely to be relevant to a broader population, but specific implications for people with ABI are discussed. Overall, we propose that it is viable, and sometimes preferable, to utilize online interview techniques but researchers must take care to consider the practical, ethical and methodological implications of doing so.

Keywords

methods in qualitative inquiry community based research focus groups grounded theory constructivist GT

Introduction

Traditionally face-to-face interview methods have been used to generate qualitative interview data (Creswell, 2013). However, with the catalyst of the global pandemic (COVID-19), more researchers are being forced to utilize online data collection methods due to social distancing regulations (Lobe et al., 2020). This option is especially important within disability research, as people with disability (PWD) are disproportionately impacted by the public health risk posed by the pandemic and are at higher risk of contracting the virus (WHO, 2020). Furthermore, PWD face inequities in accessing healthcare and experience greater health needs and poorer outcomes. Given the extra vulnerability faced by PWD, social distancing regulations at levels beyond those of the general population are likely to be necessary. Thus, the need for a disability-inclusive response to the social distancing restrictions imposed by COVID-19 is fundamental to ensuring consumer inclusive research practices facilitate the participation of PWD (Holmes et al., 2020; O’Connell et al., 2020). Accordingly, research methods will be required to follow the same trajectory and it is vital to consider the impact of transitioning to online methods for PWD in order to continue quality disability research.

The internet has transformed everyday communication, workplaces (Greenfield & Davis, 2002) and higher education (Wall & Sarver, 2003). In turn, opportunities have emerged to increase economic and social inclusion for PWD, in line with the international rights legislation (U.N. General Assembly, 2007, 2016). Consistent with the social model of disability (Shakespeare, 2006), many barriers to community access and participation are created by the physical environment, thus an online environment offers opportunities to overcome some of these barriers (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Easton, 2013; Pang et al., 2018). PWD increasingly utilize the internet for socialization and gaming (Baker-Sparr et al., 2018; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2014), peer support (Alhaboby et al., 2017; Kaplan et al., 2011), as well as a source of health information (Hill et al., 2012; A. J. Synnot et al., 2011).

In this paper, we focus on conducting research interviews and focus groups online with PWD as the result of acquired brain injury (ABI). As we were in the process of a large piece of research involving people with ABI, we were particularly interested in the practical, ethical and methodological considerations that could be informed by existing literature. ABI is a leading cause of death and disability in adults worldwide (Nichol et al., 2011). Survivors of ABI experience a range of cognitive, physical, behavioral and psychosocial impairments of varying severities (Nestvold & Stavem, 2009). Cognitive and communication impairments include problems with processing information, recall, response formulation, and concentration. Such impairments can impact negatively on in-depth interviews due to troubles with event recollection, impaired conversational and narrative discourse, fatigue and distraction (Carlsson et al., 2007; Douglas, 2013; Paterson & Scott-Findley, 2002). Thus, some studies prioritize interviewing close others, or health and rehabilitation professionals about the experiences of people with ABI (Paterson & Scott-Findley, 2002; S. E. Thorne & Paterson, 2000). However, it is increasingly understood that interviewing PWD is critical to gaining authentic meaningful insights into their lived and consumer experience (Kosciulek, 2000; Ottmann & Laragy, 2010; S. Thorne et al., 2002). While there are previously documented challenges to consider when interviewing people with ABI (Carlsson et al., 2007; Douglas, 2013; Liamputtong, 2007; Paterson & Scott-Findley, 2002), this paper focuses on those specific to online methods.

Advancing technologies and the wide-reaching accessibility of the internet are presenting new avenues for qualitative research. However, it is important that the practical and ethical considerations when adapting methods are not overlooked, particularly with vulnerable populations. There is existing literature examining asynchronous methods such as surveys (Barchard & Williams, 2008), forums or text-based focus groups (Dattilo et al., 2008; McNaughton et al., 2014; A. Synnot et al., 2014; Turney & Pocknee, 2005), email-interviewing (Benford & Standen, 2011; Bowden & Galindo-Gonzalez, 2015; Cook, 2012; Egan et al., 2006; Fritz & Vandermause, 2018; Ison, 2009) and the analysis of existing data (Burles & Bally, 2018). This paper explores considerations for online interviewing methods of data collection, such as focus groups and interviews. Synchronous interview environments allow for real-time data collection via video and audio (Berg, 2007; Sullivan, 2012), and therefore overcome some of the barriers faced by asynchronous environments which do not enable live back-and-forth exchange of questions and responses. Previous discussions have been published on the methodological implications of synchronous interviewing via videoconference (Archibald et al., 2019; Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Gray et al., 2020; Hanna, 2012; Iacono et al., 2016; Janghorban et al., 2014; Lobe et al., 2020; Mirick & Wladkowski, 2019; Namey et al., 2020; Neville et al., 2016; Seitz, 2016; Sullivan, 2012; Weinmann et al., 2012). Additionally, there is evidence suggesting videoconference is a viable medium to provide rehabilitation treatment to people with ABI (Ownsworth et al., 2020; Tsaousides et al., 2014). However, there is a paucity of information in the literature to guide online interviewing with people with cognitive and communication impairments as the result of ABI. Email-interviewing and text-based focus groups have been explored as accessible alternatives for people with ABI and communication impairments (Egan et al., 2006; Hemsley et al., 2008; Ison, 2009; Jamison et al., 2018), and therefore will be further considered in this paper. Largely, the use of online methods with people with ABI is relatively novel, and with the sudden requirement for it in the current climate, an examination of the potential considerations is justified.

Considering the above, this article aims to map out the potential practical, ethical and methodological considerations when adapting research methods to an online environment, with suggestions for practice when working with adults with ABI. Additionally, a checklist to guide researchers conducting online data generation methods is provided in Appendix A. Learnings from previous studies utilizing or discussing online methods are considered and implications specific to research with people with ABI identified, though much of the content is likely to apply more broadly. By highlighting the potential challenges and providing prospective solutions, it is hoped that PWD can be effectively supported to participate in qualitative research conducted in online environments.

Method

This project grew out of the necessity to better understand what is important to consider when transitioning to online data collection with people with ABI. Due to unprecedented circumstances (i.e., COVID-19), there was limited time for a systematic review. Thus, a rapid narrative review was conducted. Though, systematic reviews are considered gold standard, a narrative review offers breadth of literature coverage at a pace we felt was necessary to inform rapidly evolving research practice (Byrne, 2016).

Targeted search strategies were applied across Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo, complimented by forward and backward reference searching techniques to identify relevant literature. All peer-reviewed literature that could inform qualitative online data collection with people with ABI was eligible for inclusion. Search terms under the headings (1) ABI, (2) online and (3) qualitative interviewing were combined. As this search returned a small yield (n = 158) with very little relevant literature (n = 4), the ABI concept was changed to all disability types to broaden the scope of the search. As there was still limited evidence available (yield, n = 908; relevant articles, n = 11), the population concept was removed. Without a population concept, the database searches yielded a large number of articles (n = 14,493) and time did not allow for full systematic screening. Thus, Google Scholar and forward and backward reference searching was utilized to search for further relevant references.

The primary author scanned the records retrieved and reviewed the articles relevant to interviewing via videoconference, email or online focus groups. Reference lists from articles specifically addressing either (1) a comparison of online vs. face-to-face methods, (2) online methods with PWD, or (3) online methods with people with ABI were hand searched for further relevant references. Following all searching, 12 ABI specific references, 20 references specific to PWD and 54 references not specific to disability informed the considerations discussed below.

Due to the limited literature focused on online interviewing with people with ABI, the articles reporting on research with broader populations were reviewed within a framework considering: (1) how the practical, ethical and methodological considerations impact our client population (people with ABI), and (2) how can we use these considerations to inform our research practice. Thus, this paper is structured such that the general practical, ethical and methodological considerations are described, each with suggestions for practice with people with ABI. Where the practice suggestions are supported by previous research specific to PWD, or people with ABI, it is made explicit in the text. Where there are gaps in the population-specific literature, practice suggestions will be informed by the general literature and our research and practice knowledge. Table 1 summarizes the references cited within each recommended consideration, illustrating the participant group of the research (PWD, people with ABI or a broader population). In the table, there are characters to denote when the evidence comes from primary or secondary (e.g., reviews, books or commentaries) data sources.

Table 1.

Summary of Citations for Each Consideration by Research Population.

		Broader Populations (not PWD)	People With Disability	People With ABI
Practical	Technical difficulties and accessibility	Archibald et al. (2019),^a Forrestal et al. (2015),^a Lobe et al. (2020),^b Mann & Stewart (2000),^b Moore et al. (2015),^a Sedgwick & Spiers (2009)^a	Sunderland et al. (2015)^a	Cocks et al. (2014),e Egan et al. (2006),^a Ownsworth et al. (2020),^a Vaezipour et al. (2019)^b
	Interview environment	Deakin & Wakefield (2014),^a Hanna (2012),^a Mann & Stewart (2000),^b McCoyd & Kerson (2006),^a Opdenakker (2006),^a Orchard & Fullwood (2010)b	Bowker & Tuffin (2004)^a	Egan et al. (2006),^a Paterson & Scott-Findley (2002)^a
	Time and costs	Fritz & Vandermause (2018),^a Granello & Wheaton (2004),^b Krouwel et al. (2019),^a Moore et al. (2015),^a Namey et al. (2020),^a Neville et al. (2016),^a Sedgwick & Spiers (2009),^a Seitz (2016),^a Shore et al. (2007)^a	Benford & Standen (2011),^a Therrien (2019)^a	Carlsson et al. (2007),^a Egan et al. (2006),^a Ownsworth et al. (2020),^a Seymour (2001)^a
Ethical	Consent & withdrawal	Janghorban et al. (2014),^b Kivits (2005),^b Kaplowitz et al. (2004),^a Lobe et al. (2020),^b McCoyd & Kerson (2006),^a Moore et al. (2015)^a	Benford & Standen (2011),^a Ison (2009)^a	Egan et al. (2006),^a Paterson & Scott-Findley (2002)^a
	Privacy and confidentiality	Lobe et al. (2020),^b Moore et al. (2015),^a Sullivan (2012),^b Williams et al. (2012)^a	Bowker & Tuffin (2004),^a Liddiard et al. (2018)^a	Egan et al. (2006)^a
	Emotional support	Shepherd (2003)^a	Benford & Standen (2011),^a Bowker & Tuffin (2004)^a	Carlsson et al. (2007),^a Egan et al. (2006)^a
	Fatigue	McConnon (2020),^b Pinker (2020),^b Schwartzberg (2020),^b Wiederhold (2020)^b		Carlsson et al. (2007),^a Paterson & Scott-Findley (2002)^a
Methodological	Recruitment and sampling	Cater (2011),^b Cook (2012),^a Deakin & Wakefield (2014),^a Granello & Wheaton (2004),^b Jowett et al. (2011),^a Keller & Lee (2003),^b Mann & Stewart (2000),^b Moore et al. (2015),^a Oringderff (2004),^b O’Connor et al. (2008),^b Seitz (2016),^a Sullivan (2012),^b Suri & Patel (2019),^b Turney & Pocknee (2005)^a	Alhaboby et al. (2017),^a Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009,^a 2011),^a Benford & Standen (2011),^a Fox & Purcell (2010),a Helsper (2008),^a Ison (2009),^a Scholz et al. (2017),^a Sunderland et al. (2015),^a Vincente & Lopez (2010)^a	Baker-Sparr et al. (2018),^a Egan et al. (2006),^a Kilov et al. (2010),^b Ownsworth et al. (2020),^a Vaccaro et al. (2007)^a
	Building rapport	Archibald et al. (2019),^a Charmaz (2006),^b 2014),^b Deakin & Wakefield (2014),^a Fontana & Frey (2008),^b Joinson (2005),^b Kivits (2005),^b Mann & Stewart (2000),^b Moore et al. (2015),^a O’Connor & Madge (2001),^a Orgad (2005),^b Rowley (2012),^b Seitz (2016)^a	Benford & Standen (2011),^a Bowker & Tuffin (2004),^a Ison (2009),^a Liamputtong (2007)^b	Egan et al. (2006),^a Ownsworth et al. (2020),^a Prescott et al. (2018)^a
	Group dynamics	Bagnoli & Clark (2010),^a Browne (2016),^a Carey & Smith (1994),^a Cater (2011),^b Duggleby (2000),^a Farnsworth & Boon (2010),^a Graffigna & Bosio (2006),^a Halpern & Gibbs (2013),^a James & Busher (2009),^b Mann & Stewart (2000),^b Moore et al. (2015),^a Oringderff (2004),^b Stewart & Williamsa (2005), Turney & Pocknee (2005),^a Watson et al. (2006),^a Sweet (2001)^b	Hemsley et al. (2008),^a Jamison et al. (2018),^a McNaughton et al. (2014),^a A. Synnot et al. (2014)^a	Tsaousides et al. (2014)^a
	Data authenticity	Bampton & Cowton (2002),^a Bargh et al. (2002),^a Beebe et al. (2008),^b Busher & James (2012),^b Charmaz (2006),^b Cooper (2009),^b Dillon (2010),^a Ellison et al. (2006),^a Forrestal et al. (2015),^a Fox et al. (2007),^a James (2016),^a James & Busher (2009),^b Joinson (2005),^a Kivits (2005),^b McCoyd & Kerson (2006),^a Scott (2004),^a Shepherd (2003),^a Sullivan (2012),^b Suri & Patel (2019)^b	Alhaboby et al. (2017),^a Benford & Standen (2011),^a Bowker & Tuffin (2004),^a Curtin & Fossey (2007),^b Jamison et al. (2018),^a Liamputtong (2007,^b 2013)^b	Egan et al. (2006),^a Seymour (2001)^a

^a Primary data (primary data collection/comparing methods/example of online methods/learnings from primary data). ^b Secondary data (book/commentary/opinion/review/recommendations).

Practical Considerations

An early step in the design phase of a research project is assessing the feasibility of collecting sufficient data to answer the question of interest. Thus, when modifying face-to-face methods to be conducted online, it is critical to first consider the practical elements of online data collection including: (1) technical difficulties and accessibility, (2) the interview environment and (3) time and costs.

Technical Difficulties and Accessibility

Online research requires participants to navigate the platform by which the data is being collected e.g. the videoconferencing tool or email. Although conducting research online removes many of the physical accessibility barriers people with ABI may face (Mann & Stewart, 2000; Sunderland et al., 2015), researchers must be careful not to exclude based on technological literacy e.g. understanding and knowing how to use various digital devices. Thus, it is the responsibility of the researcher to consider the participant’s familiarity with technology (Sedgwick & Spiers, 2009), ensure the platform is as accessible for PWD as possible, and incorporate further support for those less comfortable (Forrestal et al., 2015; Moore et al., 2015). It is important not to assume a level of competency as people with ABI have varying levels of cognitive impairments, such as memory problems or concentration difficulties, which can affect their technological abilities (Egan et al., 2006). Additionally, the ability to attend to a screen is one often taken for granted by the general population, whereas this can be difficult for some PWD. It is therefore recommended that researchers tailor instructions to suit the functional capacity of the participants, which may include step-by-step Easy or Plain English instructions sent to the participant prior to the interview (via email or post), practice sessions and ongoing support (Ownsworth et al., 2020; Vaezipour et al., 2019).

Some technical difficulties will be out of the control of the researcher e.g. internet speed, and sound and video quality (Archibald et al., 2019; Lobe et al., 2020). Practice sessions may help mitigate or at least plan for these difficulties. However, during the interview or focus group, connectivity issues can interrupt the session, making it harder to predict and less responsive than in-person data collection. Losing connection can be frustrating for the participant (Archibald et al., 2019) and may cause them to disengage and lose focus, which is potentially of higher risk with participants with cognitive impairments, or anxiety and low frustration tolerance (Cocks et al., 2014; Ownsworth et al., 2020). Interrupting the flow of the conversation is also likely to influence the rapport between the researcher and interviewee, which is particularly relevant given the aim is to ensure the participant is comfortable to share information. To reduce the burden and potential impact of technical issues, the participant should be provided with accessible guidance on setting up and troubleshooting. It is helpful to inform participants of a contingency plan at the start of the interview should technical difficulties arise and offer to conduct the interview at another time or via another medium if problems persist (e.g., via phone).

Interview Environment

Remote interviewing means the researcher has little control over the external environment surrounding the participant and disruptive environments risk shifting focus from the interview (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014). Such distractions can be especially problematic for people with ABI and cognitive impairments likely to impact executive functioning and sustained attention, as seen when interviewing people with ABI face-to-face (Paterson & Scott-Findley, 2002). Though, during face-to-face interviews the researcher can standardize the environment and more readily create a positive atmosphere (Opdenakker, 2006). However, researchers have posed that a benefit of online methods for people in socially marginalized groups is that they can participate in an environment conducive to their needs (Bowker & Tuffin, 2004; Mann & Stewart, 2000). For some participants, the home environment may offer more privacy (McCoyd & Kerson, 2006). Nevertheless, for others a private space may be difficult to secure, potentially resulting in participants sharing less information. Additionally, some participants may be more comfortable in familiar settings and therefore be more prepared, or even better able, to talk about their experiences (Hanna, 2012; Orchard & Fullwood, 2010), as shown in studies with PWD (Bowker & Tuffin, 2004) and people with ABI (Egan et al., 2006). In order to minimize potential concentration and attention difficulties, as well as confidentiality breaches, guidance should be provided to the participant as to how to set up a suitable environment in preparation for the interview or focus group. The participant’s environment is also important to contextualize their responses. Qualitative researchers are advised to take field notes and employ thick description techniques (Geertz, 1973) to facilitate later interpretation of the data. For example, if the participant was in a noisy environment, the researcher would describe the environment in detail, making judgment statements about whether it impacted the participant’s responses. Therefore, although the researcher has limited control over the environment, a record of the participant’s external environment and perceived impact on the participant will aid subsequent analysis.

Time and Costs

Largely, online methods are cost and time efficient compared to face-to-face interviewing, due to the elimination of travel (Egan et al., 2006; Fritz & Vandermause, 2018; Krouwel et al., 2019; Namey et al., 2020; Shore et al., 2007) and expansion of recruitment options (Neville et al., 2016; Seitz, 2016). However, there are some exceptions to consider. Although appointments can be arranged more conveniently for the participant (Ownsworth et al., 2020), the perceived ease of scheduling can result in more cancellations and rescheduling. Thus, organizing the interview or focus group can become more time intensive (Sedgwick & Spiers, 2009), and incur financial costs as the result of non-attendance, as well as costs of additional technical support or software (Granello & Wheaton, 2004). A potential reason for increased non-attendance is the researcher appearing more available, or participants perceiving an online appointment as less formal than an in-person appointment (Sedgwick & Spiers, 2009). Correspondingly, Moore et al. (2015) reported high non-attendance for online focus groups due to people forgetting or having technical problems, and Therrien (2019) reported a low response rate to member checking questions following online focus groups with people using augmented and alternative communication. This is especially relevant for PWD, and people with ABI more specifically, who often have memory impairments (Carlsson et al., 2007). The faceless nature of online recruitment, and the length of time between interactions in email-interviewing, may also compromise momentum and in turn increase dropout rates (Benford & Standen, 2011; Egan et al., 2006; Seymour, 2001). Given these risks, it is recommended that researchers put a process in place whereby participants are reminded of the interview and given the option of cancelling. Frequent contact with participants is important to maintain engagement (Egan et al., 2006; Moore et al., 2015; Seymour, 2001), as well as facilitate a better relationship with the researcher and make it a connected human experience. Specific to email-interviewing, setting clear expectations about the speed of responses is recommended also (Benford & Standen, 2011). Overall, however online interview methods appear to be a cost-effective alternative to in-person interviewing, particularly for hard-to-reach populations (Sedgwick & Spiers, 2009).

Ethical Considerations

Ensuring research is ethical and safe is of particular importance when participants are considered potentially vulnerable (Liamputtong, 2007), as is the case with research with people with ABI. Ordinarily, risks are minimal in interview studies and much of the same ethical issues relevant to face-to-face interviewing will be important for online interviewing (Ess & Hard af Segerstad, 2019; Franzke et al., 2020). However, there are ethical challenges posed by the online nature of interviewing people with ABI which must be considered to ensure strategies are employed to protect the wellbeing of participants. Egan et al. (2006) suggest ethical guidelines to consider when email-interviewing people with ABI, but in this paper we extend on this to include the consideration of videoconference interviewing and focus groups online. The following ethical issues are discussed: (1) informed consent and withdrawal, (2) privacy and confidentiality, (3) emotional support and (4) fatigue.

Informed Consent & Withdrawal

Though the process of obtaining consent for online interviewing is similar to face-to-face, it is arguably harder to establish that the participant is sufficiently informed and has fully understood the consent process (Moore et al., 2015). Thus, incorporating sufficient checks with all participants is important, but is of particular importance for people with ABI, who can be more vulnerable to misinterpreting consent forms, or forgetting what they have agreed to (Paterson & Scott-Findlay, 2002). A strategy to assist with the process would be to complete the consent form with the participant in person (Ison, 2009), via videoconference or telephone. Alternatively, the participant could nominate a trusted support person to read the information and consent forms with them and verify that they understand what their involvement means (Egan et al., 2006). Establishing ongoing consent may be of concern also, as the intention of pauses or silences can be ambiguous (particularly for text-based interview methods). The researcher therefore does not know whether a pause or silence is indicative of withdrawal, or due to a technical glitch or merely a moment to consider one’s response (Kivits, 2005). Thus, it is the responsibility of the researcher to reconfirm consent at appropriate points, and ensure the participants are comfortable to discontinue at any time and make a means by which to do so clearly accessible. There are suggestions in the general literature that participants feel more empowered to discontinue online interviews due to reduced social pressures compared to face-to-face interviews (as one can withdraw by clicking a button) (Janghorban et al., 2014; Kaplowitz et al., 2004; Lobe et al., 2020). While reduced pressure to continue may be an advantage of online interviewing in terms of the voluntary nature of participation, it is recommended that researchers set up mechanisms by which participants have a clear option to communicate their reasons for withdrawing. Additionally, it is especially important in email-interviewing people with ABI to continually maintain the participant’s awareness of the research function of the interaction and reconfirm consent. Given the ongoing nature of email interaction coupled with the lack of researcher presence, the participant may lose track of the research-related purpose of the interaction and disclose unnecessary information that may have unintended consequences (Benford & Standen, 2011; McCoyd & Kerson, 2006). Benford and Standen (2011), who interviewed people with communication impairments via email, describe a number of useful strategies to maintain participants’ awareness of the research nature of the email interaction e.g. carefully wording emails and attaching project information to each email.

Privacy & Confidentiality

Transparency about the use and storage of data to participants is critical in all research, however privacy can be at greater risk online due to the requirement of a third-party platform to conduct interviews (Lobe et al., 2020). Online platforms have the potential to record conversations, save data, and track locations and identities (Sullivan, 2012). Thus, it is more onerous on the researcher to investigate the platforms and take extra steps to ensure the platform and connection is secure and communicate risks with the participants (Bowker & Tuffin, 2004; Lobe et al., 2020; Moore et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2012). However, online environments compared to face-to-face can offer more privacy to PWD who would require assistance to leave the home but can participate at home without support (Liddiard et al., 2018). Nevertheless, it must be noted that some people with ABI will require a support person to participate in remote research (e.g., technical or emotional support) which compromises their confidentiality (Egan et al., 2006). It is therefore important that the researcher employs strategies to reduce the need for a support person during the interview (e.g., straight-forward technology, practices beforehand, support person on standby), and where necessary, the participant nominates their own support person.

Emotional Support

Reflecting upon and sharing experiences of living with ABI may cause participants to experience emotional distress (Carlsson et al., 2007). While distress is a risk of face-to-face interviews, the remote nature of online interviews prevents the researcher from providing the same emotional support physical presence allows. Further, it may be more difficult for the researcher to interpret the participant’s distress, especially in text-based methods (Benford & Standen, 2011; Bowker & Tuffin, 2004; Egan et al., 2006; Shepherd, 2003). Given this potential, strategies must be employed to minimize risk and provide support where necessary. When email-interviewing people with ABI, Egan et al. (2006) ensured participants had a nominated support person available to the participant in the case of emotional stress. Although this is a viable strategy to employ, it must be noted that this will not be appropriate for all participants. As reflected in Egan et al.’s (2006) study, some people may feel patronized by requiring a support person in order to participate. It is therefore recommended that the researcher puts a distress protocol in place. The risk of emotional distress must be clear to the participant before commencing the interview, and they should be given both written and verbal guidance on what to do should they start to feel distressed. The researcher should endeavor to include contact details of someone independent from the research project who is equipped and available to provide support during the interview or focus group. Another strategy is to have a second researcher present during the online interview, to pay attention to the wellbeing of the participant/s. This strategy would be especially useful during focus groups wherein the primary researcher is focused on moderating and capturing the relevant data and therefore may miss subtle cues of distress.

Fatigue

It is important to consider the heightened risks of participant fatigue during online interviewing. Although this is a recognized consideration for interviewing people with ABI face-to-face (Carlsson et al., 2007; Paterson & Scott-Findley, 2002), the exponential increase in use of videoconferencing technology during the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the tiring nature of communicating via online platforms (Wiederhold, 2020). Communication methods are disrupted by the very slight delay in the interaction (McConnon, 2020), as well as the lack of nonverbal body cues humans rely on to communicate effectively. In the context of the communication and concentration difficulties people with ABI often experience, this phenomenon may well be amplified. Thus, it is important to highlight this risk to participants and encourage them to advise when they are tired, and the researcher should be vigilant to any signs of fatigue and offer breaks where appropriate. It may be preferable to do the interview in multiple sessions for some participants. Additionally, strategies to assist communicating effectively via videoconferencing and help minimize the fatiguing effects of online communications are being increasingly documented during COVID-19 (Pinker, 2020; Schwartzberg, 2020; Wiederhold, 2020). For instance, setting up the camera to ensure the speaker’s face and torso is in view to help increase visibility of micro expressions and other non-verbal cues. Appropriate suggestions to minimize fatigue are a valuable inclusion in interview set up guidance material provided to participants (as suggested above).

Methodological Considerations

The final section discusses potential issues that straddle both practical and ethical elements but are related more closely to methodological challenges posed by the nature of conducting qualitative research online. While methodological issues faced by qualitative researchers have been widely documented (Charmaz, 2006; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Irvine, 2010; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nind, 2008), in the current paper we reflect on considerations specific to qualitative research in the online space, with particular attention to people with ABI, including: (1) recruitment and sampling, (2) building rapport, (3) group dynamics and (4) data authenticity.

Recruitment & Sampling

One of the key advantages of online research is access to a larger, more diverse population of participants (Cater, 2011; Cook, 2012; Seitz, 2016; Sullivan, 2012). Geographical and physical accessibility barriers to face-to-face participation, often faced by PWD, are reduced (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Moore et al., 2015; Sullivan, 2012; Suri & Patel, 2019; Turney & Pocknee, 2005). Additionally, online methods can promote inclusivity of vulnerable adults and marginalized groups by minimizing social and emotional barriers (Alhaboby et al., 2017; Mann & Stewart, 2000). However, online research excludes those without access to the internet and a level of technological competence (Jowett et al., 2011), and internet access is not equally distributed across the population (Granello & Wheaton, 2004; Helsper, 2008; Oringderff, 2004). Thus, recruiting for online studies risks a socioeconomic, age and geographical sampling bias (Egan et al., 2006; Keller & Lee, 2003; Moore et al., 2015; O’Connor et al., 2008; Sullivan, 2012; Sunderland et al., 2015). Of particular importance, PWD are disproportionately represented in the population of non-internet users (Fox & Purcell, 2010; Scholz et al., 2017; Vincente & Lopez, 2010). Specifically, people with ABI face barriers when using the internet due to cognitive-communication and behavioral impairments, technical accessibility, internet access and costs (Kilov et al., 2010; Vaccaro et al., 2007). Although evidence suggests the ‘digital divide’ is decreasing (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009, 2011; Baker-Sparr et al., 2018), researchers must consider strategies to minimize sampling biases when recruiting PWD, and in turn, people with ABI. One strategy would be to target recruitment efforts offline (e.g., to relevant groups, by newsletters) as well as online (Ison, 2009), and provide participants with means by which to participate, or offer compensation for the costs incurred. Although this may appear costly, it is likely to be offset by the savings on time and space required to conduct face-to-face interviews. Further, participants should be considered on an individual basis as people with ABI may not have the supports to participate (Ownsworth et al., 2020). Researchers should consider offering participants, particularly those with disability, alternative options by which to participate to avoid exclusion (e.g., email, face-to-face, telephone, conventional mail) (Benford & Standen, 2011; Ison, 2009).

Building Rapport

Mutuality between the researcher and participant is critical to obtaining rich data in qualitative research (Charmaz, 2006; Liamputtong, 2007). It is important for participants to feel comfortable, particularly when discussing sensitive topics. In rehabilitation research, establishing trust has been shown as a pre-requisite to adults with ABI feeling comfortable disclosing information about their lived experience and allowing the development of a collaborative relationship (Prescott et al., 2018). However, the absence of face-to-face interactions in online research has been shown to compromise the quality of the researcher-participant connection (Fontana & Frey, 2008; Seitz, 2016). Accordingly, it has been argued that interviews online can lose the richness of the interaction (Rowley, 2012), and can be more awkward during emotional exchanges (Seitz, 2016). While being able to see the researcher helps build rapport in videoconferencing methods (Archibald et al., 2019; Deakin & Wakefield, 2014), the impact of online communication on the researcher-participant connection is likely to be exacerbated for people with ABI, who may rely more heavily on nonverbal cues due to verbal communication impairments. Correspondingly, recent research using videoconferencing for rehabilitation purposes with people with ABI has questioned whether communication via videoconference can ever equal face-to-face interaction (Ownsworth et al., 2020). To offset the lack of in-person interaction, the researcher must employ strategies to build rapport and show genuine interest in getting to know the participants (Charmaz, 2014; Liamputtong, 2007). For instance, eye contact can be difficult to achieve via videoconference, but focusing on the camera when speaking rather than the screen can help mimic eye contact virtually (Schwartzberg, 2020; Wiederhold, 2020). Additional communication prior to online interviewing can help establish the researcher-participant connection, as discussed in literature with the general population (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Moore et al., 2015; Seitz, 2016) and people with ABI (Egan et al., 2006). During the interview or focus group, allowing time for introductions and small talk is important, making it as similar to in-person interviews as possible. Additionally, as with rapport building in face-to-face interviews, it is recommended that the researcher offers information about themselves to the participant (Bowker & Tuffin, 2004; Ison, 2009; Joinson, 2005; Kivits, 2005; Mann & Stewart, 2000). This demonstration of openness can reduce power imbalances (Charmaz, 2006; Liamputtong, 2007), and assist in encouraging the participant to be open.

The lack of audio-visual cues in text-based interview methods can exacerbate the challenges of building rapport remotely, and the time between asynchronous exchanges may result in a more formal interaction (Mann & Stewart, 2000). Previous researchers encouraged meeting in-person (Benford & Standen, 2011; Bowker & Tuffin, 2004; Ison, 2009), or exchanging photographs to assist with rapport (O’Connor & Madge, 2001). Additionally, using shared colloquial language and developing informal dialogue are strategies endorsed by Egan et al. (2006), who conducted email interviews with adults with ABI, and by Ison (2009), following email interviews with adults with verbal communication impairments. Furthermore, communicating sensitively and with a non-judgmental attitude was valued by participants in Egan et al.’s (2006) study.

On the other hand, the extended time and repetition of the interaction in email interviews affords time for the researcher to get to know the participant and may in fact lead to stronger relational development (Bowker & Tuffin, 2004; Kivits, 2005). Benford and Standen (2011) point out the risk of development of dependency on the researcher especially with more vulnerable participants. Thus, although rapport is key, researchers need to be careful to maintain a degree of professional distance (Orgad, 2005). Strategies employed by both Benford and Standen (2011) and Egan et al. (2006) when interviewing PWD included being careful with language during more personal exchanges and ensuring closing signals are clear when ending of the interview. Given the complexity of the researcher-interviewee relationship, it is important to consider the needs of individual participants, aiming to strike the balance of personal and professional in order to elicit rich data, but maintaining protection of the participant throughout.

Group Dynamics

Central to the success of focus groups is the dynamic between the individuals participating (Farnsworth & Boon, 2010). The interaction between participants is the fundamental distinction of focus groups from other qualitative research methods (Watson et al., 2006), and group interaction is key to the production of research data (Bagnoli & Clark, 2010). Positive dynamics should encourage participants to share openly and discuss their experiences honestly, but negative dynamics could cause acquiescence or inhibition (Carey & Smith, 1994; Duggleby, 2000). Inevitably, the nature of interaction will change in online environments compared to face-to-face (Sweet, 2001; A. Synnot et al., 2014), and challenges are likely to be exacerbated for people with cognitive and communication difficulties. Productive group dynamics are potentially harder to foster in online settings with the lack of, or reduced, nonverbal cues, natural conversational subtleties and limited time for participants to interact informally (Cater, 2011; Mann & Stewart, 2000; Moore et al., 2015), as people with complex communication needs (Hemsley et al., 2008) and the general population alike (Duggleby, 2000), rely on these non-verbal messages to aid discussion. The more anonymous nature of text-based focus groups could negatively affect group dynamics because people can be less inclined to modify potentially inflammatory language or controversial opinions (Oringderff, 2004; A. Synnot et al., 2014), as seen in other online spaces (Halpern & Gibbs, 2013). On the other hand, however, text-based focus groups could encourage more authentic disclosure due to the faceless nature of the interaction (Jamison et al., 2018). Participants may feel more anonymous, and this sense of anonymity could in turn reduce social desirability characteristics (Graffigna & Bosio, 2006).

Promisingly, there are studies confirming that online focus groups, text-based and videoconference, can foster cohesive bonds between participants (Stewart & Williams, 2005; Turney & Pocknee, 2005; Watson et al., 2006). Key to the success of focus groups is the skill of the moderator (Hemsley et al., 2008; James & Busher, 2009; Oringderff, 2004). Moderators need to guide the group in line with the research topics without disrupting the flow of interactions (Moore et al., 2015). Different moderating styles will be appropriate depending on the group and topic (Graffigna & Bosio, 2006), but the researcher is central to fostering a respectful, permissive atmosphere (Mann & Stewart, 2000). Specific to focus groups with people with complex communication needs, the moderator must be proficient in the use of a variety of communication strategies and actively clarify unclear messages, as demonstrated in face-to-face focus groups with people using augmented and alternative communication (Hemsley et al., 2008). Moderators can employ further strategies used in face-to-face settings, such as allowing time for group members to develop rapport (Watson et al., 2006), and using humor where appropriate (Browne, 2016). Correspondingly, participants with ABI who participated in group treatment via videoconferencing suggested allowing time for informal conversation as a strategy to make it more similar to face-to-face and make people feel comfortable (Tsaousides et al., 2014).

Maximizing interaction in text-based focus groups, or focus groups with participants with complex communication needs, may be more challenging (Hemsley et al., 2008; Stewart & Williams, 2005; A. Synnot et al., 2014), but successful strategies have been documented. Allowing time for participants to introduce themselves and incorporating activities to find commonalities between participants will help build connections between participants (Hemsley et al., 2008; McNaughton et al., 2014; Moore et al., 2015). Additionally, Moore et al. (2015) used a virtual interactive whiteboard to encourage participants to converse with one another, resulting in richer data. However, it must be noted that the whiteboard format was seen as too structured for some groups, highlighting the importance of considering the particular group and topic at hand. Online focus groups can therefore facilitate productive group dynamics, but additional strategies may be required. Going forward, it is anticipated that videoconference interactions will continue to be utilized as a common form of communication, meaning research participants are likely to be comfortable communicating via this medium.

Data Authenticity

The quality of qualitative research is largely dependent on the authenticity of the data. Fundamental to eliciting authentic data is the rapport between the researcher and participant, and a comfortable interview setting, both of which will facilitate open dialogues (Busher & James, 2012). Thus, applying additional strategies to increase rapport and comfort for the participant, as previously discussed, is also important with reference to data authenticity. With videoconference data collection, researchers still have some access to nonverbal cues, which aids in determining the authenticity of data (Beebe et al., 2008; Sullivan, 2012). Yet, it has been suggested that the removal of non-verbal cues and need for transcriptions in email-interviewing and text-based focus groups could reduce the researcher bias during interpretation, thus yielding a more authentic representation (Bampton & Cowton, 2002; Jamison et al., 2018; Seymour, 2001). Additionally, it has been implied that more authentic narratives can be seen in text-based online research due to the sense of anonymity in online interactions (Alhaboby et al., 2017; Bargh et al., 2002; Ellison et al., 2006). The relative anonymity of text-based methods arguably encourages disclosure (Egan et al., 2006; Jamison et al., 2018; Joinson, 2005; Shepherd, 2003), and therefore text-based methods may be better suited to discussing sensitive topics (Forrestal et al., 2015; McCoyd & Kerson, 2006). Further, the presence of the researcher and other participants (in focus groups) is less apparent in text-based interviewing, making it a less daunting environment particularly for those who are naturally reticent in face-to-face contexts (Fox et al., 2007; Scott, 2004). Moreover, responses pertaining to social desirability are less likely with visual anonymity (Dillon, 2010; Suri & Patel, 2019), further increasing authenticity.

Nevertheless, it has also been argued that with time to construct answers in asynchronous text-based methods (e.g., email-interviewing), participants have more control over presentation of self, in turn decreasing authenticity (Cooper, 2009). Considering the cohort of interest however, text-based interview techniques may be more likely to increase the authenticity of the data than for the general population. The opportunity to consider questions at one’s own pace is particularly valuable to people with ABI, as often cognitive and communication impairments restrict the capacity to retain questions and immediately generate a considered answer. Text-based interviews give time for participants to think more deeply, which in turn should increase the authenticity of answers (Benford & Standen, 2011; Egan et al., 2006; James, 2016; James & Busher, 2009). Email-interviewing also affords more time for researchers to learn the communication style of the participant and adapt interview questions and probes accordingly (Benford & Standen, 2011; Bowker & Tuffin, 2004). Further, in line with qualitative methods (Charmaz, 2006), the length of time between interactions enables concurrent data analysis to inform ongoing interviews (Bampton & Cowton, 2002). The opportunity to consider data is valuable for reflection, allowing the researcher to incorporate new questions in response to the emerging data and verify the authenticity of the data (Benford & Standen, 2011; Kivits, 2005). To assist with the verification of authenticity in synchronous online methods, researchers could employ strategies to triangulate data (Curtin & Fossey, 2007). Such strategies could include verifying online interactions offline (e.g., member checking following interviews) (Bowker & Tuffin, 2004; Liamputtong, 2013), or conducting part of the data collection online (e.g., text-based focus groups) and following up with offline face-to-face interviews.

Discussion

Though online methods open up a range of possibilities for qualitative researchers, there are a number of practical, ethical and methodological considerations to take into account. This exploration has contributed to the existing literature contemplating the benefits and challenges of qualitative research online, with specific focus on interviewing people with ABI. People with ABI experience a range of impairments likely to be impacted by the adaptation of interview methods to an online space e.g. attention and communication difficulties. Text-based methods have discernible differences from face-to-face interviewing and present their own range of challenges, and researchers must be vigilant to the differences between in-person and videoconferencing interviewing also. While videoconference interviewing permits a similar style of interview to face-to-face, there are indisputably marked differences, particularly when interviewing people with ABI. Though it is not an exhaustive list of considerations, this paper provides insights into criteria to consider when adapting research methods to an online space. The importance of each consideration will vary depending on the nature of the project, as well as the individual participant. Additionally, it is anticipated that online research will continue to evolve beyond the life of the pandemic (i.e., COVID-19), as many work spaces including universities and industry research partners have transformed traditional working practices. Thus, with the possibilities offered by online research evident more broadly, different challenges and considerations are likely to emerge. While the majority of the literature cited, and therefore most of the considerations described, are relevant to a broader population than people with ABI, this is the first manuscript explicitly collating considerations for interviewing people with ABI online.

With support from the limited ABI-specific literature, along with our practice experience, we argue that while some considerations have been deduced from the general population, they are all of critical importance to the conduct of research with PWD, and in particular people with ABI. The considerations discussed impact the interface between cognition, communication and psychological wellbeing, and while these domains can vary within the general population, they are at particular risk following an ABI. Thus, we recommend assessing the needs and preferences of the individual participant, while being alert to the cognitive, communication and psychological domains, and applying the considerations accordingly.

Ethical considerations should be at the forefront when researching participants potentially considered vulnerable (Liamputtong, 2007). Thus, researchers must incorporate strategies to ensure online alternatives to interview methods do not compromise the safety and comfort of the participants. Though many of the same ethical considerations are relevant to in-person interviewing, as discussed, the challenges present in different ways in an online space. Thus, it is imperative that ethical guidance and ethics review boards keep up with the rapidly evolving methods.

Attention to the issues discussed can enhance not only the delivery of the research but also the quality of research outputs. Given qualitative research is often focused on the subjective lived experience of participants, quality is largely evaluated in terms of the rigor and trustworthiness of the data (Charmaz, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As many of the factors discussed impact the authenticity of the data, quality of data can be at risk. For example, both the interview environment and the rapport between the researcher and participant are crucial in encouraging participants to disclose honest and open accounts of their viewpoints and experience (Charmaz, 2006). Similarly, group dynamics in focus groups need to be comfortable in order to be productive and yield authentic data. Further, the resonance of the findings to the population of interest is highly regarded in qualitative research (Charmaz, 2006), and therefore sampling the appropriate participants is vital. Thus, to ensure the research is of high quality, it is recommended that researchers assess the impact of the changes to data collection methods against the quality criteria relevant to their theoretical stance before commencing data collection.

Limitations and Future Directions

Given the time constraints imposed by the need to inform our research practice in response to the global pandemic (i.e., COVID-19), we did not have time to invite the perspectives of PWD. However, in recognizing the importance of the voice of people with lived experience and the need for the perspective of people with ABI on this topic, we are conducting a primary data study to gain insights into online qualitative interviewing from the perspective of research participants with ABI and researchers. Another limitation of this project, also due to time restraints, is that it is not a systematic review. Though a rapid narrative review offered the opportunity to gather a breadth of literature and inform our rapidly evolving research practice, with the exponential growth of online studies due to necessity, there is likely to be an increasing number of papers published utilizing online methods in the coming months. Thus, a full systematic review incorporating learnings and implications for research practice feels timely.

Conclusion

The possibilities offered by online research are invaluable in enabling studies to continue despite unforeseen circumstances. It is anticipated that the online methods discussed will continue to be of great value following the global pandemic, as the strengths of online methods become more evident. However, with new methods come challenges researchers may not have contemplated previously. It is therefore important that researchers are careful to consider each project and participant on a case by case basis. Being aware of the potential complexities with interviewing people with ABI online should enable researchers to plan strategies to overcome challenges accordingly. It is hoped that the guidance and suggestions offered in this paper will assist researchers to deliver best practice research while protecting the welfare of participants with ABI, and more generally.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-ijq-10.1177_16094069211019615 - General Considerations for Conducting Online Qualitative Research and Practice Implications for Interviewing People with Acquired Brain Injury

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-ijq-10.1177_16094069211019615 for General Considerations for Conducting Online Qualitative Research and Practice Implications for Interviewing People with Acquired Brain Injury by Megan Topping, Jacinta Douglas and Dianne Winkler in International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Footnotes

Appendix A: Online Interviewing Checklist

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This work was undertaken by the first author while completing a PhD at La Trobe University, supported by a grant made available through the Summer Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.

ORCID iD

Megan Topping

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Alhaboby

Z. A.

Barnes

Evans

Short

(2017). Challenges facing online research: Experiences from research concerning cyber-victimisation of people with disabilities. Cyberpsychology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-1-8

Archibald

M. M.

Ambagtsheer

R. C.

Casey

M. G.

Lawless

(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

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Household use of information technology, Australia, 2008–2009. ABS Catalogue No. 8146.0. www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/9B44779BD8AF6A9CCA25768D0021EEC3/$File/81460_2008-09.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Household use of information technology, Australia, 2010–2011. ABS Catalogue No. 8146.0. www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/8146.0201011?OpenDocument

Bagnoli

Clark

(2010). Focus groups with young people: A participatory approach to research planning. Journal of Youth Studies, 13(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260903173504

Baker-Sparr

Hart

Bergquist

Bogner

Dreer

Juengst

David

O’Neil-Pirozzi

T. M.

Sander

A. M.

Whiteneck

G. G.

(2018). Internet and social media use after traumatic brain injury: A traumatic brain injury model systems study. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 33(1), E9–E17. https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000305

Bampton

Cowton

C. J.

(2002). The e-interview. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.2.848

Barchard

K. A.

Williams

(2008). Practical advice for conducting ethical online experiments and questionnaires for United States psychologists. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1111–1128. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1111

Bargh

J. A.

McKenna

K. Y. A.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

(2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48. https://doi/10.1111/1540-4560.00247

10.

Beebe

S. A.

Beebe

S. J.

Redmond

M. V.

(2008). Interpersonal communication: Relating to others (5th ed.). Pearson.

11.

Benford

Standen

P. J.

(2011). The use of email-facilitated interviewing with higher functioning autistic people participating in a grounded theory study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(5), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2010.534654

12.

Berg

B. L.

(2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

13.

Bowden

Galindo-Gonzalez

(2015). Interviewing when you’re not face-to-face: The use of email interviews in a phenomenological study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.28945/2104

14.

Bowker

Tuffin

(2004). Using the online medium for discursive research about people with disabilities. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303262561

15.

Browne

A. L.

(2016). Can people talk together about their practices? Focus groups, humour and the sensitive dynamics of everyday life. Area, 48(2), 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12250

16.

Burles

M. C.

Bally

J. M. G.

(2018). Ethical, practical, and methodological considerations for unobtrusive qualitative research about personal narratives shared on the internet. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918788203

17.

Busher

James

(2012). Ethics of research in education. In Briggs

Coleman

Morrison

(Eds.), Research methods in educational leadership and management (3rd ed., pp. 90–104). Sage.

18.

Byrne

J. A.

(2016). Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(1), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2

19.

Carey

M. A.

Smith

M. W.

(1994). Capturing the group effect in focus groups: A special concern in analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 4(1), 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F104973239400400108

20.

Carlsson

Paterson

B. L.

Scott-Findlay

Ehnfors

Ehrenberg

(2007). Methodological issues in interviews involving people with communication impairments after acquired brain damage. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1361–1371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307306926

21.

Cater

J. K.

(2011). Skype a cost-effective method for qualitative research. Rehabilitation Counselors & Educators Journal, 4, 10–17.

22.

Charmaz

. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

23.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

24.

Cocks

Bulsara

O’Callaghan

Netto

Boaden

(2014). Exploring the experiences of people with the dual diagnosis of acquired brain injury and mental illness. Brain Injury, 28(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2014.880799

25.

Cook

(2012). Email-interviewing: Generating data with a vulnerable population. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(6), 1330–1339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05843.x

26.

Cooper

(2009). Online interviewing: It’s not as simple as point and click. The Qualitative Report, 14(4), 250–253. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol14/iss4/15

27.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

28.

Curtin

Fossey

(2007). Appraising trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54(2), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00661.x

29.

Dattilo

Estrella

L. J.

Light

McNaughton

Seabury

(2008). “I have chosen to live life abundantly”: Perceptions of leisure by adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610701390558

30.

Deakin

Wakefield

(2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126

31.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2008). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 1–43). Sage.

32.

Dillon

(2010). Listening for voices of self: Digital journaling among gifted young adolescents. Qualitative Research Journal, 10(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1001013

33.

Douglas

J. M.

(2013). Conceptualizing self and maintaining social connection following severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 27(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2012.722254

34.

Duggleby

(2000). What about focus group interaction data? Qualitative Health Research, 15(6), 832–840. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049732304273916

35.

Easton

(2013). An examination of the Internet’s development as a disabling environment in the context of the social model of disability and anti-discrimination legislation in the UK and USA. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0268-2

36.

Egan

Chenoweth

McAuliffe

(2006). Email-facilitated qualitative interviews with traumatic brain injury survivors: A new and accessible method. Brain Injury, 20(12), 1283–1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699050601049692

37.

Ellison

Heino

Gibbs

(2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x

38.

Ess

Hard af Segerstad

. (2019). Everything old is new again: The ethics of digital inquiry and its design. In Makitalo

Nicewonger

T. E.

Elam

(Eds.), Designs for experimentation and inquiry: Approaching learning and knowing in digital transformation (pp. 179–196). Routledge.

39.

Farnsworth

Boon

(2010). Analysing group dynamics within the focus group. Qualitative Research, 10(5), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110375223

40.

Fontana

Frey

J. H

. (2008). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed.). Sage.

41.

Forrestal

S. G.

D’Angelo

A. V.

Vogel

L. K.

(2015). Considerations for and lessons learned from online, synchronous focus groups. Survey Practice, 8(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.29115/sp-2015-0015

42.

Fox

Morris

Rumsey

(2007). Doing synchronous online focus groups with young people: Methodological reflection . Qualitative Health Research, 17(4), 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306298754

43.

Fox

Purcell

(2010, March 24). Chronic disease and the internet. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2010/03/24/chronic-disease-and-the-internet/

44.

Franzke

Bechmann

Zimmer

Ess

(2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. Association of Internet Researchers. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf

45.

Fritz

R. L.

Vandermause

(2018). Data collection via in-depth email-interviewing: Lessons from the field. Qualitative Health Research, 28(10), 1640–1649. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316689067

46.

Geertz

(1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books, Inc.

47.

Graffigna

Bosio

A. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500307

48.

Granello

D. H.

Wheaton

J. E.

(2004). Online data collection: Strategies for research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(4), 387–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00325.x

49.

Gray

L. M.

Wong-Wylie

Rempel

G. R.

Cook

(2020). Expanding qualitative research interviewing strategies: Zoom video communications. Qualitative Report, 25(5), 1292–1301.

50.

Greenfield

Davis

(2002). Lost in cyberspace: The web @ work. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(4), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102760275590

51.

Halpern

Gibbs

(2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008

52.

Hanna

(2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111426607

53.

Helsper

E. J.

(2008). Digital inclusion: An analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. Communities and Local Government.

54.

Hemsley

Balandin

Togher

(2008). “I’ve got something to say”: Interaction in a focus group of adults with cerebral palsy and complex communication needs. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610701830579

55.

Hill

Filippini

Synnot

Summers

Beecher

Colombo

Mosconi

Battaglia

M. A.

Shapland

Osborne

R. H.

Hawkins

(2012). Presenting evidence-based health information for people with multiple sclerosis: The IN-DEEP project protocol. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-20

56.

Holmes

E. A.

O’Connor

R. C.

Perry

V. H.

Tracey

Wessely

Arseneault

Ballard

Christensen

Silver

R. C.

Everall

Ford

John

Kabir

King

Madan

Michie

Przybylski

A. K.

Shafran

Sweeney

Worthman

C. M.

Bullmore

. (2020). Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for action for mental health science. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 0366(20), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1

57.

Iacono

V. Lo

Symonds

Brown

D. H. K.

(2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3952

58.

Irvine

(2010). Conducting qualitative research with individuals with developmental disabilities: Methodological and ethical considerations. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 38(1–2), 21–34.

59.

Ison

N. L.

(2009). Having their say: Email interviews for research data collection with people who have verbal communication impairment. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570902752365

60.

James

(2016). Using email interviews in qualitative educational research: Creating space to think and time to talk. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1017848

61.

James

Busher

(2009). Online interviewing. Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857024503

62.

Jamison

Sutton

Mant

De Simoni

(2018). Online stroke forum as source of data for qualitative research: Insights from a comparison with patients’ interviews. BMJ Open, 8(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020133

63.

Janghorban

Roudsari

R. L.

Taghipour

(2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.24152

64.

Joinson

(2005). Internet behaviour and the design of virtual methods. In Hine

(Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 21–34). Berg publisher.

65.

Jowett

Peel

Shaw

(2011). Online interviewing in psychology: Reflections on the process. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8(4), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2010.500352

66.

Kaplan

Salzer

M. S.

Solomon

Brusilovskiy

Cousounis

(2011). Internet peer support for individuals with psychiatric disabilities: A randomized controlled trial. Social Science and Medicine, 72(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.037

67.

Kaplowitz

M. D.

Hadlock

T. D.

Levine

(2004). A comparison of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh006

68.

Keller

H. E.

Lee

(2003). Ethical issues surrounding human participants research using the internet. Ethics and Behavior, 13(3), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1303_01

69.

Kilov

A. M.

Togher

Power

Turkstra

(2010). Can teenagers with traumatic brain injury use Internet chatrooms: A systematic review of the literature and the internet. Brain Injury, 24(10), 1135–1172. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2010.490511

70.

Kivits

(2005). Online interviewing and the research relationship. In Hine

(Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the internet (pp. 35–49). Berg Publishers.

71.

Kosciulek

J. F.

(2000). Implications of consumer direction for disability policy development and rehabilitation service delivery. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 11(2), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/104420730001100204

72.

Krouwel

Jolly

Greenfield

(2019). Comparing Skype (video calling) and in-person qualitative interview modes in a study of people with irritable bowel syndrome-an exploratory comparative analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0867-9

73.

Liamputtong

(2007). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. Sage.

74.

Liamputtong

(2013). The science of words and the science of numbers: Research methods as foundations for evidence-based practice in health. In Liamputtong

(Ed.), Research methods in health: Foundations for evidence-based practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–24). Oxford University Press.

75.

Liddiard

Runswick-Cole

Goodley

Whitney

Vogelmann

Watts MBE

(2018). “I was excited by the idea of a project that focuses on those unasked questions” co-producing disability research with disabled young people. Children and Society, 33(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12308

76.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

77.

Lobe

Morgan

Hoffman

K. A.

(2020). Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920937875

78.

Mann

Stewart

(2000). Internet communication in qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. Sage.

79.

McConnon

. (2020). What introverts and extroverts need during the lockdown. Retrieved October 2, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-introverts-and-extroverts-need-during-the-lockdown-11587678114

80.

McCoyd

J. L. M.

Kerson

T. S.

(2006). Conducting intensive interviews using email: A serendipitous comparative opportunity. Qualitative Social Work, 5(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325006067367

81.

McNaughton

Rackensperger

Dorn

Wilson

(2014). «home is at work and work is at home»: Telework and individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. Work, 48(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-141860

82.

Mirick

R. G.

Wladkowski

S. P.

(2019). Skype in qualitative interviews: Participant and researcher perspectives. Qualitative Report, 24(12), 3061–3072.

83.

Moore

McKee

McCoughlin

(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 Online, 9(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.3351/ppp.0009.0001.0002

84.

Namey

Guest

O’Regan

Godwin

C. L.

Taylor

Martinez

(2020). How does mode of qualitative data collection affect data and cost? Findings from a quasi-experimental study. Field Methods, 32(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X19886839

85.

Nestvold

Stavem

(2009). Determinants of health-related quality of life 22 years after hospitalization for traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 23(1), 15–21. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699050802530540

86.

Neville

Adams

Cook

(2016). Using internet-based approaches to collect qualitative data from vulnerable groups: Reflections from the field. Contemporary Nurse, 52(6), 657–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2015.1095056

87.

Nichol

A. D.

Higgins

A. M.

Gabbe

B. J.

Murray

L. J.

Cooper

D. J.

Cameron

P. A.

(2011). Measuring functional and quality of life outcomes following major head injury: Common scales and checklists. Injury, 42(3), 281–287. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.047

88.

Nind

(2008). Conducting qualitative research with people with learning, communication and other disabilities: Methodological challenges . ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, 12, 1–24. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/491/

89.

O’Connell

C. M.

Eriks-Hoogland

Middleton

J. W.

(2020). Now, more than ever, our community is needed: Spinal cord injury care during a global pandemic. Spinal Cord Series and Cases, 6(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-020-0270-0

90.

O’Connor

Madge

(2001). Cyber-mothers: Online synchronous interviewing using conferencing software. Sociological Research Online, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1177%2F136078040400900205

91.

O’Connor

Madge

Shaw

Wellens

(2008). Internet-based interviewing. In Fielding

Lee

R. M.

Blank

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of online research methods (pp. 271–289). Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857020055.n15

92.

Opdenakker

(2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-7.4.175

93.

Orchard

Fullwood

(2010). Current perspectives on personality and internet use. Social Science Computer Review, 28(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894439309335115

94.

Orgad

(2005). From online to offline and back: Moving from online to offline relationships with research informants. In Hine

(Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research and the internet (pp. 51–65). Berg Publisher.

95.

Oringderff

(2004). “My way”: Piloting an online focus group. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(3), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300305

96.

Ottmann

G. F.

Laragy

(2010). Developing consumer-directed care for people with a disability: 10 Lessons for user participation in health and community care policy and program development. Australian Health Review, 34(4), 390–394. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH09759

97.

Ownsworth

Theodoros

Cahill

Vaezipour

Quinn

Kendall

Moyle

Lucas

(2020). Perceived usability and acceptability of videoconferencing for delivering community-based rehabilitation to individuals with acquired brain injury: A qualitative investigation. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 26(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561771900078X

98.

Pang

P. C. I.

Chang

Verspoor

Clavisi

(2018). The use of web-based technologies in health research participation: Qualitative study of consumer and researcher experiences. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(10). https://doi.org/10.2196/12094

99.

Paterson

Scott-Findlay

(2002). Critical issues in interviewing people with traumatic brain injury. Qualitative Health Research, 12(3), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129119973

100.

Pinker

(2020, April 2). The science of staying connected. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-of-staying-connected-11585835999

101.

Prescott

Fleming

Doig

(2018). Rehabilitation goal setting with community dwelling adults with acquired brain injury: A theoretical framework derived from clinicians’ reflections on practice. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(20), 2388–2399. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1336644

102.

Rowley

(2012). Conducting research interviews. Management Research Review, 35(3–4), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211210154

103.

Scholz

Yalcin

Priestley

(2017). Internet access for disabled people: Understanding socio-relational factors in Europe. Cyberpsychology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-1-4

104.

Schwartzberg

(2020, April 8). How to elevate your presence in a virtual meeting. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-elevate-your-presence-in-a-virtual-meeting

105.

Scott

(2004). Researching shyness: A contradiction in terms? Qualitative Research, 4(1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1468794104041109

106.

Sedgwick

Spiers

(2009). The use of videoconferencing as a medium for the qualitative interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800101

107.

Seitz

(2016). Pixilated partnerships, overcoming obstacles in qualitative interviews via Skype: A research note. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115577011

108.

Seymour

W. S.

(2001). In the flesh or online? Exploring qualitative research methodologies. Qualitative Research, 1(2), 147–165.

109.

Shakespeare

(2006). The social model of disability. In Davis

L. J.

(Eds.), The disability studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 197–204). Routledge.

110.

Shepherd

(2003, July 16–19). Interviewing online: Qualitative research in the network(ed) society [Paper presentation]. AQR qualitative research conference, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved April 4, 2005, http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00001436/

111.

Shore

J. H.

Brooks

Savin

D. M.

Manson

S. M.

Libby

A. M.

(2007). An economic evaluation of telehealth data collection with rural populations. Psychiatric Services, 58(6), 830–835. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2007.58.6.830

112.

Stewart

Williams

(2005). Researching online populations: The use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109337866

113.

Sullivan

J. R.

(2012). Skype: An appropriate method of data collection for qualitative interviews. The Hilltop Review, 6(1), 54–60. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/hilltopreview/vol6/iss1/10

114.

Sunderland

Chenoweth

Matthews

Ellem

(2015). 1000 voices: Reflective online multimodal narrative inquiry as a research methodology for disability research. Qualitative Social Work, 14(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325014523818

115.

Suri

Patel

(2019). Ethical considerations in online research methods. Scholarly Ethics and Publishing, 646–661. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8057-7.ch032

116.

Sweet

(2001). Designing and conducting virtual focus group. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 4(3), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750110393035

117.

Synnot

Hill

Summers

Taylor

(2014). Comparing face-to-face and online qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis. Qualitative Health Research, 24(3), 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314523840

118.

Synnot

A. J.

Hill

Beecher

Colombo

Filippini

Mosconi

Osborne

Chapland

Summers

(2011). The Internet and treatment information-seeking by people with multiple sclerosis. International Journal of MS Care, 13(Suppl. 3), 58. https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073-13.S3.1

119.

Therrien

M. C. S.

(2019). Perspectives and experiences of adults who use AAC on making and keeping friends. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(3), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1599065

120.

Thorne

Paterson

Acorn

Canam

Joachim

Jillings

(2002). Chronic illness experience: Insights from a metastudy. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120007

121.

Thorne

S. E.

Paterson

B. L.

(2000). Two decades of insider research: What we know and don’t know about chronic illness experience. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 18(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1891/0739-6686.18.1.3

122.

Tsaousides

D’Antonio

Varbanova

& Spielman

(2014). Delivering group treatment via videoconference to individuals with traumatic brain injury: A feasibility study. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(5), 784–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2014.907186

123.

Turney

Pocknee

(2005). Virtual focus groups: New frontiers in research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(2), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690500400203

124.

U.N. General Assembly. (2007, January 24). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: Resolution/adopted by the general assembly (A/RES/61/106). http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45f973632.html

125.

U.N. General Assembly. (2016, December 20). Report of the special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities (Theme: Access to rights-based support for persons with disabilities) (A/HRC/34/58;2016). https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Disability/SRDisabilities/Pages/Reports.aspx

126.

Vaccaro

Hart

Whyte

Buchhofer

(2007). Internet use and interest among individuals with traumatic brain injury: A consumer survey. Disability & Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 2(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483100601167586

127.

Vaezipour

Whelan

B. M.

Wall

Theodoros

(2019). Acceptance of rehabilitation technology in adults with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, their caregivers, and healthcare professionals: A systematic review. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 34(4), E67–E82. https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000462

128.

van Deursen

A. J. A. M.

van Dijk

J. A. G. M.

(2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media and Society, 16(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959

129.

Vincente

M. R.

Lopez

A. J.

(2010). A multidimensional analysis of the disability digital divide: Some evidence for Internet use. The Information Society, 26(1), 48–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01615440903423245

130.

Wall

P. S.

Sarver

(2003). Disabled student access in an era of technology. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(3), 277–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(03)00046-0

131.

Watson

Peacock

Jones

(2006). The analysis of interaction in online focus groups. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 13(12), 551–557. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2006.13.12.22471

132.

Weinmann

Thomas

Brilmayer

Heinrich

Radon

(2012). Testing Skype as an interview method in epidemiologic research: Response and feasibility. International Journal of Public Health, 57(6), 959–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0404-7

133.

Wiederhold

B. K.

(2020). Connecting through technology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Avoiding “zoom fatigue.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(7), 437–438. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.29188.bkw

134.

Williams

Giatsi Clausen

Robertson

Peacock

McPherson

(2012). Methodological reflections on the use of asynchronous online focus groups in health research . International Journal of Qualitative Methodology, 11(4), 368–383. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/index

135.

World Health Organization. (2020). Disability considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak. https://www.who.int/who-documents-detail/disability-considerations-during-the-covid-19-outbreak

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.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB