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/