Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-12
Benefits of and Recommendations for Asynchronous Online Focus Group Methodology for Sexual and Reproductive Health Research with Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,Transgender,Queer,Intersex,Asexual,and Other Sexuality- and Gender-Expansive People with a Cervix
This study aimed to characterize benefits of asynchronous online focus groups (AOFGs) for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other sexuality- and gender-expansive (LGBTQIA+) young adults with a cervix and to identify strategies for maximizing those benefits and optimizing data collection in order to increase equitable representation of this population in health research.
Methods:
From March to September 2022, we conducted six gender-stratified AOFGs with cisgender women, nonbinary people, and transgender men with a cervix ages 21–29 living in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Participants completed a questionnaire to evaluate AOFG procedures and experiences. Based on these data and our observations of AOFG engagement, we developed and evaluated strategies to optimize both data collection and participant benefit.
Results:
AOFGs provided participants with informational and instrumental support, connection through shared experiences, and opportunity for introspection. Participants expressed a strong desire for social interaction within AOFG discussions, and we identified several strategies that were effective in promoting engagement and interaction in AOFGs.
Conclusion:
AOFGs can facilitate inclusion in research of LGBTQIA+ individuals for whom other data collection methods are inaccessible, and may offer direct social and emotional benefits to participants. Promoting social interaction among participants is essential for optimizing these benefits. These findings offer important insight for AOFG methodology as a means of increasing equitable representation of LGBTQIA+ people in health research while offering direct and immediate benefits to participants.
BlairKL. Ethical research with sexual and gender minorities. In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies. (GoldbergAE. ed) SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA; 2016; pp. 375–380.
2.
CoulterRWS, KenstKS, BowenDJ, et al.Research funded by the National Institutes of Health on the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations. Am J Public Health, 2014; 104(2):e105–e112; doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301501
3.
ReisnerSL, PoteatT, KeatleyJ, et al.Global health burden and needs of transgender populations: A review. Lancet, 2016; 388(10042):412–436; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00684-X
4.
RussomannoJ, PattersonJG, Jabson TreeJM. Social media recruitment of marginalized, hard-to-reach populations: Development of recruitment and monitoring guidelines. JMIR Public Health Surveill, 2019; 5(4):e14886; doi: 10.2196/14886
5.
ForstieC. Theory making from the middle: Researching LGBTQ communities in small cities. City Community, 2020; 19(1):153–168; doi: 10.1111/cico.12446
6.
Ellard-GrayA, JeffreyNK, ChoubakM, et al.Finding the hidden participant: Solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations. Int J Qual Methods, 2015; 14(5):160940691562142; doi: 10.1177/1609406915621420
7.
GraffignaG, BosioAC. The influence of setting on findings produced in qualitative health research: A comparison between face-to-face and online discussion groups about HIV/AIDS. Int J Qual Methods, 2006; 5(3):55–76; doi: 10.1177/160940690600500307
8.
GenuisSK, LuthW, WeberG, et al.Asynchronous online focus groups for research with people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and family caregivers: Usefulness, acceptability and lessons learned. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2023; 23(1):222; doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02051-y
9.
Estrada-JaramilloA, MichaelM, FarrimondH. Absence, multiplicity and the boundaries of research? Reflections on online asynchronous focus groups. Qual Res, 2023; 23(6):1669–1688; doi: 10.1177/14687941221110169
10.
WilliamsS, ClausenMG, RobertsonA, et al.Methodological reflections on the use of asynchronous online focus groups in health research. Int J Qual Methods, 2012; 11(4):368–383; doi: 10.1177/160940691201100405
11.
ZwaanswijkM, van DulmenS. Advantages of asynchronous online focus groups and face-to-face focus groups as perceived by child, adolescent and adult participants: A survey study. BMC Res Notes, 2014; 7(1):756; doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-756
12.
MacNamaraN, MackleD, TrewJD, et al.Reflecting on asynchronous internet mediated focus groups for researching culturally sensitive issues. Int J Soc Res Methodol, 2021; 24(5):553–565; doi: 10.1080/13645579.2020.1857969
13.
ReisnerSL, RandazzoRK, White HughtoJM, et al.Sensitive health topics with underserved patient populations: Methodological considerations for online focus group discussions. Qual Health Res, 2018; 28(10):1658–1673; doi: 10.1177/1049732317705355
14.
DuBoisLZ, MacapagalKR, RiveraZ, et al.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. Arch Sex Behav, 2015; 44(7):2027–2040; doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0521-5
15.
YbarraML, ParrillaJS, WolowicJ, et al.A national, qualitative study of sexual decision making by teenage girls who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or who have another nonheterosexual identity. J Pediatr, 2020; 217:177–183; doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.10.038
16.
EarnshawVA, MeninoDD, SavaLM, et al.LGBTQ bullying: A qualitative investigation of student and school health professional perspectives. J LGBT Youth, 2020; 17(3):280–297; doi: 10.1080/19361653.2019.1653808
17.
ReisnerSL, SavaLM, MeninoDD, et al.Addressing LGBTQ student bullying in Massachusetts schools: Perspectives of LGBTQ students and school health professionals. Prev Sci, 2020; 21(3):408–421; doi: 10.1007/s11121-019-01084-4
18.
YbarraML, DuBoisLZ, ParsonsJT, et al.Online focus groups as an HIV prevention program for gay, bisexual, and queer adolescent males. AIDS Educ Prev, 2014; 26(6):554–564; doi: 10.1521/aeap.2014.26.6.554
19.
DoullM, WolowicJ, SaewycE, et al.Why girls choose not to use barriers to prevent sexually transmitted infection during female-to-female sex. J Adolesc Health, 2018; 62(4):411–416; doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.10.005
20.
YbarraML, Price-FeeneyM, PrescottT, et al.Girl2Girl: How to develop a salient pregnancy prevention program for cisgender sexual minority adolescent girls. J Adolesc, 2020; 85:41–58; doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.09.006
21.
HillierL, MitchellKJ, YbarraML. 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. J LGBT Youth, 2012; 9(3):225–246; doi: 10.1080/19361653.2012.684642
22.
GordonAR, RobertsS, SilversteinS, et al.What is needed for eating disorder prevention for transgender and gender diverse young adults? Findings from asynchronous online focus groups. Body Image, 2024; 48:101667; doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2023.101667
23.
GordonAR, CalzoJP, EidusonR, et al.Asynchronous online focus groups for health research: Case study and lessons learned. Int J Qual Methods, 2021; 20:1609406921990489; doi: 10.1177/1609406921990489
24.
EidusonR, MurchisonGR, AgénorM, et al.Sexual healthcare experiences of nonbinary young adults. Cult Health Sex, 2022; 24(10):1319–1335; doi: 10.1080/13691058.2021.1946595
25.
PeitzmeierSM, BernsteinIM, McDowellMJ, et al.Enacting power and constructing gender in cervical cancer screening encounters between transmasculine patients and health care providers. Cult Health Sex, 2020; 22(12):1315–1332; doi: 10.1080/13691058.2019.1677942
26.
AgénorM, ZubizarretaD, GeffenS, et al.“Making a way out of no way”: Understanding the sexual and reproductive health care experiences of transmasculine young adults of color in the United States. Qual Health Res, 2022; 32(1):121–134; doi: 10.1177/10497323211050051
27.
StenzelAE, BustamanteG, SarkinCA, et al.The intersection of sexual orientation with race and ethnicity in cervical cancer screening. Cancer, 2022; 128(14):2753–2759; doi: 10.1002/cncr.34213
28.
OladeruOT, MaSJ, MiccioJA, et al.Breast and cervical cancer screening disparities in transgender people. Am J Clin Oncol, 2022; 45(3):116–121; doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000893
29.
CurrySJ, KristAH, OwensDK, et al.; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 2018; 320(7):674–686; doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897
30.
MorrowKM, VargasS, RosenRK, et al.The utility of non-proportional quota sampling for recruiting at-risk women for microbicide research. AIDS Behav, 2007; 11(4):586–595; doi: 10.1007/s10461-007-9213-z
31.
BarberBV, WeeksLE, SpassianiNA, et al.Experiences of health and aging for younger adults in long-term care: A social-ecological multi-method approach. Disabil Soc, 2021; 36(3):468–487; doi: 10.1080/09687599.2020.1751074
32.
MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. vBulletin Cloud. MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands: El Segundo, CA; 2022.
33.
Qualtrics. Qualtrics. Qualtrics: Provo, UT; 2023.
34.
SmithJ, FirthJ. Qualitative data analysis: The framework approach. Nurse Res, 2011; 18(2):52–62; doi: 10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.52.c8284
35.
GaleNK, HeathG, CameronE, et al.Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2013; 13(1):117; doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117
36.
DavisG, KhonachT. The paradox of positionality: Avoiding, embracing, or resisting feminist accountability. Fat Studies, 2020; 9(2):101–113; doi: 10.1080/21604851.2019.1628604
37.
HayfieldN, HuxleyC. Insider and outsider perspectives: Reflections on researcher identities in research with lesbian and bisexual women. Qual Res Psychol, 2015; 12(2):91–106; doi: 10.1080/14780887.2014.918224
38.
Knott-FayleG, PeelE, WitcombGL. Prejudice in “inclusive” spaces: Cisgenderist collusion in the interview context. Fem Psychol, 2022; 32(2):178–198; doi: 10.1177/09593535211063263
39.
CollinsCS, StocktonCM. The central role of theory in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods, 2018; 17(1):1609406918797475; doi: 10.1177/1609406918797475
40.
DwyerSC, BuckleJL. The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods, 2009; 8(1):54–63; doi: 10.1177/160940690900800105
41.
EliasonMJ. Inside/out: Challenges of conducting research in lesbian communities. J Lesbian Stud, 2016; 20(1):136–156; doi: 10.1080/10894160.2015.1061415
42.
HallamKF. Moving on from trials and errors: A discussion on the use of a forum as an online focus group in qualitative research. Int J Soc Res Methodol, 2022; 25(4):429–439; doi: 10.1080/13645579.2021.1888402
43.
RichardB, SivoSA, OrlowskiM, et al.Qualitative research via focus groups: Will going online affect the diversity of your findings? Cornell Hosp Q, 2021; 62(1):32–45; doi: 10.1177/1938965520967769
44.
United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts: Massachusetts. Washington, DC; 2023. Available from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/MA [Last accessed: August13, 2024].
45.
United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts: Rhode Island. Washington, DC; 2023. Available from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/RI [Last accessed: August13, 2024].
46.
BrenickA, RomanoK, KeglerC, et al.Understanding the influence of stigma and medical mistrust on engagement in routine healthcare among Black women who have sex with women. LGBT Health, 2017; 4(1):4–10; doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2016.0083
47.
AgénorM, KriegerN, AustinSB, et al.At the intersection of sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and cervical cancer screening: Assessing Pap test use disparities by sex of sexual partners among black, Latina, and white U.S. women. Soc Sci Med, 2014; 116:110–118; doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.06.039
48.
AgénorM, GeffenSR, ZubizarretaD, et al.Experiences of and resistance to multiple discrimination in health care settings among transmasculine people of color. BMC Health Serv Res, 2022; 22(1):369; doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07729-5
49.
AbramsJA, TabaacA, JungS, et al.Considerations for employing intersectionality in qualitative health research. Soc Sci Med, 2020; 258:113138; doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113138
50.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. US Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC; 1979.
51.
Sanson-FisherRW, CampbellEM, HtunAT, et al.We are what we do: Research outputs of public health. Am J Prev Med, 2008; 35(4):380–385; doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.039
52.
JamesT, PlatzerH. Ethical considerations in qualitative research with vulnerable groups: Exploring lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences of health care—a personal perspective. Nurs Ethics, 1999; 6(1):73–81; doi: 10.1177/096973309900600108
53.
SeranoJ. Considering queer and trans appropriation. In: Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism & Trans Feminism. Switch Hitter Press: Oakland, CA; 2016.
54.
BauerG, DevorA, HeinzM, et al.CPATH Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving Transgender People & Communities. Canadian Professional Association for Transgender Health: Canada; 2019.
55.
TebbeEA, BudgeSL. Research with trans communities: Applying a process-oriented approach to methodological considerations and research recommendations. Couns Psychol, 2016; 44(7):996–1024; doi: 10.1177/0011000015609045
56.
NamasteV. Undoing theory: The “transgender question” and the epistemic violence of Anglo-American feminist theory. Hypatia, 2008; 24(3):11–32; doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01043.x
