Focus groups conducted with grieving people pose special challenges. However, this method can be successfully used in bereavement research especially when group interaction is central to the research aim. This article builds on key articles discussing ethical, methodological, logistical, and analytical issues in conducting focus groups with vulnerable populations (Owen, 2001; Seymour, Bellamy, Gott, Ahmedzai, & Clark, 2002). For bereaved people, vulnerability stems from heightened potential for harm by virtue of participation in sensitive, personal exploration of death-related experiences. We discuss reasons for selecting focus group methods and our experiences with planning and implementing focus groups with bereaved people. Issues found to be highly salient in our work include: team composition, participant recruitment, creating the environment, starting and ending the group, language and listening, managing emotional discussions and time, and analytic considerations. Recommendations are made for effectively using focus groups to generate new knowledge in bereavement research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaderG. E., & RossiC. A. (2002). Focus groups: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bader Group.
2.
BarbourR. S., & SchostakJ. (2005). Interviewing and focus groups. In SomekhB. & LevinC. (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 41–48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
BernardR. H. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
4.
Bridging Work Group. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice in bereavement: Report from the Center for the Advancement of Health. Death Studies, 29, 93–122.
5.
BystedtJ. (2003). Moderating to the max: A full-tilt guide to creative insightful focus groups and depth interviews.Ithaca, NY: Paramount Market.
6.
ChristG. H., & SormantiM. (1999). Advancing social work practice in end-of-life care. Social Work in Health Care, 30(2), 81–99.
7.
EarleC. C.ParkE. R.LaiB.WeeksJ. C.AyanianJ. Z., & BlockS. (2003). Identifying potential indicators of the quality of end-of-life cancer care from administrative data. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21(6), 1133–1138.
8.
ExleyC., & TyrerF. (2005). Bereaved carers views of a hospice at home service. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 11(5), 242–246.
9.
FieldM. J., & BehrmanR. E. (Eds.). (2003). When children die: Improving palliative and end-of-life care for children and their families (pp. 66–68). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10.
FieldM. J., & CasselC. K. (Eds.). (1997). Approaching death: Improving care at the end of life.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11.
FieldingN. G. (2003). Interviewing.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
FingersonL. (2005). ‘Yeah, me too!’: Adolescent talk building in group interviews. Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 11, 261–287.
13.
FinsJ. (2005). A palliative ethic of care: Clinical wisdom at life's end.Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
14.
FrankA. W. (1995). The wounded storyteller: Body, illness and ethics.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Hesse-BiberS. N., & LeavyP. L. (2005). The practice of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
HigginsC. (1988). Youth motivation: At-risk youth talk to program planners.Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures report.
17.
HillS. (2004). Doing collaborative research: Doing what feels right and makes sense. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7(2), 109–126.
18.
HonkatukiaP.NyqvistL., & PosoT. (2003). Sensitive issues in vulnerable conditions: Studying violence in youth residential care. Young, 11(4), 323–339.
19.
HudsonP.ArnadaS., & McMurrayN. (2002). Intervention development for enhanced lay palliative caregiver support—The use of focus groups. European Journal for Cancer Care, 11, 262–270.
20.
KleespiesP. M. (2003). Life and death decisions: Psychological and ethical considerations in end-of-life care.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21.
KumarR. (2005). Research methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
MainJ. (2002). Management of relatives of patients who are dying. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 11, 794–801.
23.
MeertK. L.ThurstonC. S., & BrillerS. H. (2005). The spiritual needs of parents at the time of their child's death in the pediatric intensive care unit and during bereavement: A qualitative study. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, 6(4), 420–427.
24.
MeijlerW. J.Van HeestF.OtterR., & SleijferD. (2005). Educational needs of general practitioners in palliative care: Outcome of a focus group study. Journal of Cancer Education, 20(1), 28–33.
25.
MorganD. L., & KruegerR. A. (1997). The focus group kit (Vols. 1–6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
MorrowE. (1997). Attitudes of women from vulnerable populations towards physician assisted death: A qualitative approach. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 8(3), 279–289.
27.
MorseJ. M., & RichardsL. (2002). README FIRST for a user's guide to qualitative methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
MunroE. R.HolmesL., & WardH. (2005). Researching vulnerable groups: Ethical issues and the effective conduct of research in local authorities. British Journal of Social Work, 35(7), 1023–1038.
29.
MurdaughC.HuntS.SowellR., & SantanaI. (2004). Domestic violence in Hispanics in the southeastern United States: A survey and needs analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 19(2), 107–115.
30.
MurrayS. A.BoydK.KendallM.WorthA.BentonT. F., & ClausenH. (2002). Dying of lung cancer and cardiac failure: Prospective qualitative interview study of patients and their carers in the community. British Medical Journal, 325, 929–932.
31.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (2001). Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants (Vol. 1). Bethesda, MD: Author.
OwenS. (2001) The practical, methodological and ethical dilemmas of conducting focus groups with vulnerable clients. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36(5), 652–658.
34.
PuchtaC., & PotterJ. (2004). Focus group practice.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
SchimS. M.BrillerS. H.ThurstonC. S., & MeertK. L. (2007). Life as death scholars: Passion, personality and professional perspectives. Death Studies, 31, 1–8.
37.
SeymourJ.BellamyG.GottM.AhmedzaiS. H., & ClarkD. (2002). Using focus groups to explore older people's attitudes to end of life care. Ageing & Society, 22, 517–526.
38.
ShieldR. R., & AronsonS. M. (2003). Aging in today's world.New York: Berghahn.
39.
SpallB.ReadS., & ChantryD. (2001). Metaphor: Exploring the origins and therapeutic use in death, dying, and bereavement. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 7(7), 345–353.
40.
StantonB. F.BlackM.KaljeeL., & RicardoI. (1993). Perceptions of sexual behavior among urban early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 44–66.
41.
SteinhauserK. E.ChristakisN. A.ClippE. C.McNeillyM., & TulskyJ. A. (2000). Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians and other care providers. Journal of the American Medical Association.284(19), 2476–2482.
42.
StewartD. W.ShamdasaniP. N., & RookD. W. (2006). Focus groups: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
TenoJ. M.CaseyV. A.WelchL. C., & Edgman-LevitanS. (2001). Patient-focused, family-centered end-of-life medical care: Views of the guidelines and bereaved family members. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 22(3), 738–751.
44.
TurnerW. L.WallaceB. R.AndersonJ. R., & BirdC. (2004). The last mile of the way: Understanding caregiving in African American families at the end of life. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30(4), 427–438.
