5 research outputs found
Un marco cualitativo para la recolección y análisis de datos en la investigación basada en grupos focales
Despite the abundance of published material
on conducting focus groups, scant specific
information exists on how to analyze focus
group data in social science research.
Thus, the authors provide a new qualitative
framework for collecting and analyzing focus
group data. First, they identify types of data
that can be collected during focus groups.
Second, they identify the qualitative data
analysis techniques best suited for analyzing
these data. Third, they introduce what they
term as a micro-interlocutor analysis, wherein
meticulous information about which participant
responds to each question, the order
in which each participant responds, response
characteristics, the nonverbal communication
used, and the like is collected,
analyzed, and interpreted. They conceptualize
how conversation analysis offers great potential
for analyzing focus group data. They
believe that their framework goes far beyond
analyzing only the verbal communication of
focus group participants, thereby increasing
the rigor of focus group analyses in social science
research.Apesar da grande quantidade de material publicado
sobre a realização dos grupos focais,
existe pouca informação na pesquisa das ciências
sociais sobre como analisar os dados
que estes geram. Portanto, os autores oferecem
um novo marco qualitativo para a coleta
e análise dos dados obtidos dos grupos focais.
Primeiro, identificam os tipos de dados
que podem ser coletados durante um grupo
focal. Segundo, identificam as técnicas
de análise de dados qualitativos que mais se
ajustam à análise deste tipo específico de dados.
Terceiro, introduzem o que chamam de
micro análise do interlocutor, onde se coleta,
analisa e interpreta informação meticulosa
sobre questões tais como qual participante
responde a cada pergunta, a ordem em
que responde cada participante, as características
das respostas, o tipo de comunicação
não verbal que utiliza e outras coisas similares.
Por outra parte, os autores teorizam sobre
a análise da conversação, a qual tem um
grande potencial para a análise dos dados em
grupos focais. Para eles, seu marco vai muito
além da mera análise da comunicação verbal
dos integrantes do grupo focal, aumentando
dessa forma o rigor das análises dos grupos
focais na pesquisa das ciências sociais.A pesar de la gran cantidad de material publicado
sobre la realización de grupos focales,
existe poca información en la investigación de
las ciencias sociales sobre cómo analizar los
datos que estos generan. Por lo tanto, los autores
ofrecen un nuevo marco cualitativo para
la recolección y análisis de los datos obtenidos
de los grupos focales. Primero, identifican
los tipos de datos que pueden ser recolectados
durante un grupo focal. Segundo, identifican
las técnicas de análisis de datos cualitativos
que más se ajustan al análisis de este tipo específico
de datos. Tercero, introducen lo que llaman
microanálisis del interlocutor, en donde
se recolecta, analiza e interpreta información
meticulosa sobre cuestiones tales como: cuál
participante responde a cada pregunta, el orden
en que responde cada uno de ellos, las características
de las respuestas, el tipo de comunicación
no verbal que utilizan y otras cosas
similares. Por otra parte, los autores conceptualizan
acerca del análisis de la conversación,
el cual tiene un gran potencial para el análisis
de los datos en grupos focales. Para ellos, su
marco va mucho más allá del mero análisis de
la comunicación verbal de los integrantes del
grupo, aumentando de esa manera el rigor de
los análisis de los grupos focales en la investigación
de las ciencias sociales
A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research
Despite the abundance of published material on conducting focus groups, scant specific information exists on how to analyze focus group data in social science research. Thus, the authors provide a new qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing focus group data. First, they identify types of data that can be collected during focus groups. Second, they identify the qualitative data analysis techniques best suited for analyzing these data. Third, they introduce what they term as a micro-interlocutor analysis, wherein meticulous information about which participant responds to each question, the order in which each participant responds, response characteristics, the nonverbal communication used, and the like is collected, analyzed, and interpreted. They conceptualize how conversation analysis offers great potential for analyzing focus group data. They believe that their framework goes far beyond analyzing only the verbal communication of focus group participants, thereby increasing the rigor of focus group analyses in social science research
An audit of cochlear implant referral in the UK: pilot data suggests health inequalities
Introduction: in March 2019, NICE criteria for CI were extended¹. The uptake of CI among adults is low², despite social and economic benefits³.Methods: an AuditBase Crystal Report developed by Auditdata and Cochlear®, with additional input from the clinics that piloted the report, was run between 1 July 2019 and 1 January 2020. 727 adults meeting the NICE audiometric criteria were retrospectively placed into a category: 1 = referred for CI assessment2 = unsuitable for a CI 3 = further assessment needed4= referral declined5= CI not discussedData were compared in Audiology services in the South East (SE, n=195), South West (SW, n=109), and Audiology services linked to CI teams in South London (L, n=184) and the North East (NE, n=239). Results: the proportion of eligible adults referred for CI assessment varied by site; 3% (SE), 19% (SW) 45% (L) and 33% (NE). Patients declining a CI assessment showed the largest variability between services: 92% (SE), 58% (SW) 26% (L) and 36% (NE). The percentage of eligible patients offered a CI assessment was lower at the Audiology sites not linked to a CI team: 33% (SE), 45% (SW), compared to the CI-linked sites: 61% (L) and 51% (NE). Discussion: on average 48% of eligible adults were offered a CI referral, but considerable inequality exists. Evidence suggests referral rates are affected by a number professional and patient factors⁴. Health inequalities may be linked to rates of decline⁵. Pilot results support a national Audit of CI referral. References 1 = NICE (2019) https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta566 2 = Buchman et al. (2020) doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2020.0998 3 = Archbold et al (2014) https://www.heartogether.org.uk/research/adult-strategy-reports/the-real-cost-of-adult-hearing-loss-2014 4 = Bierbaum et al (2020) DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000762 5 = Gov.uk (2019) English indices of deprivation. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019 Conflict of interest: Cochlear® funded the development of the Crystal Report and supported Audiologists to run the report but they did not have access to the data once collected and did not contribute to the analysis or write up of the results. <br/