7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Including ‘seldom heard’ views in research: opportunities, challenges and recommendations from focus groups with British South Asian people with type 2 diabetes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The inclusion of ‘seldom heard’ groups in health and social care research is increasingly seen as important on scientific, policy and ethical grounds. British South Asians, the largest minority ethnic group in the United Kingdom (UK), are under-represented in health research yet over-represented in the incidence of certain conditions such as type 2 diabetes. With the growing requirement of patient involvement in research and the inclusion of diverse populations, methodological guidance on how to include, engage and conduct research with UK South Asian populations is essential if services and interventions are to be relevant and impactful. However, such guidance for researchers is limited.

          Methods

          The aim of the paper is to reflect on our experiences of conducting focus groups with UK South Asian communities with type 2 diabetes, which involved experienced community partners and researchers working closely together. We discuss the factors that aided the successful delivery of the project, the challenges that we encountered, how we dealt with these, and recommendations.

          Results

          Our study suggests ways to involve and conduct focus groups with UK South Asian populations. Key considerations are categorised under four headings: co-working with community partners; linguistic competency; cultural competency and awareness; and reflexivity, power and acknowledgement. Having an experienced team of researchers and community experts – with the relevant linguistic and cultural competencies and different kinds of knowledge and skills – was key to the successful delivery of the study. Working collaboratively enabled us to recruit a diverse sample, to navigate the challenges of recruitment, to be present at every discussion which helped contribute to data richness, and to reflect on our own roles in the research process.

          Conclusions

          Focus groups with UK South Asian communities can be a useful way of exploring new topics and involving seldom heard views. While a useful method, focus groups are only one way of exploring a research topic and provide an insight into context-specific attitudes and views. Future research should explore British South Asian participants’ views on how they would like to be involved in research, including new methods of collecting data and coproducing research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Literature review: considerations in undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups.

          This integrated literature review seeks to identify the key considerations in conducting focus groups and discusses the specific considerations for focus group research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups. The focus group method is a technique of group interview that generates data through the opinions expressed by participants. Focus groups have become an increasingly popular method of data collection in health care research. Although focus groups have been used extensively with Western populations, they are a particularly useful tool for engaging culturally and linguistically diverse populations. The success of focus groups in this context is dependent upon the cultural competence of the research team and the research questions. The electronic databases Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Psychlit and the Internet using the Google Scholar search engine were explored using the search terms 'focus group', 'cultural sensitivity', 'transcultural nursing', 'transcultural care', 'cultural diversity' and 'ethnic groups'. Hand searching of reference lists and relevant journals was also undertaken. English language articles were selected for the review if they discussed the following issues: (i) methodological implications of the focus group method; (ii) strengths and limitations of the focus group method; (iii) recommendations for researchers and (iv) use of the focus group in culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Conclusions were drawn from each of the articles and consensus regarding a summary of recommendations was derived from a minimum of two authors. Findings from this review revealed several key issues involving focus group implementation including recruitment, sample size, data collection, data analysis and use within multicultural populations. Strengths and limitations of the focus group method were also identified. Focus groups are a useful tool to expand existing knowledge about service provision and identify consumer needs that will assist in the development of future intervention programmes, particularly within multicultural populations. Careful planning related to methodological and pragmatic issues are critical in deriving effective data and protecting participants. Focus groups can facilitate increased understanding of perspectives of culturally and linguistically diverse groups and thereby shape clinical practice to better meet the needs of these groups.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            South Asians and cardiovascular risk: what clinicians should know.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement

              Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in mental health research is increasing, especially in early (pre-funding) stages. PPI is less consistent in later stages, including in analysing qualitative data. The aims of this study were to develop a methodology for involving PPI co-researchers in collaboratively analysing qualitative mental health research data with academic researchers, to pilot and refine this methodology, and to create a best practice framework for collaborative data analysis (CDA) of qualitative mental health research. Methods In the context of the RECOLLECT Study of Recovery Colleges, a critical literature review of collaborative data analysis studies was conducted, to identify approaches and recommendations for successful CDA. A CDA methodology was developed and then piloted in RECOLLECT, followed by refinement and development of a best practice framework. Results From 10 included publications, four CDA approaches were identified: (1) consultation, (2) development, (3) application and (4) development and application of coding framework. Four characteristics of successful CDA were found: CDA process is co-produced; CDA process is realistic regarding time and resources; demands of the CDA process are manageable for PPI co-researchers; and group expectations and dynamics are effectively managed. A four-meeting CDA process was piloted to co-produce a coding framework based on qualitative data collected in RECOLLECT and to create a mental health service user-defined change model relevant to Recovery Colleges. Formal and informal feedback demonstrated active involvement. The CDA process involved an extra 80 person-days of time (40 from PPI co-researchers, 40 from academic researchers). The process was refined into a best practice framework comprising Preparation, CDA and Application phases. Conclusions This study has developed a typology of approaches to collaborative analysis of qualitative data in mental health research, identified from available evidence the characteristics of successful involvement, and developed, piloted and refined the first best practice framework for collaborative analysis of qualitative data. This framework has the potential to support meaningful PPI in data analysis in the context of qualitative mental health research studies, a previously neglected yet central part of the research cycle.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                suman.prinjha@phc.ox.ac.uk
                nbm5@le.ac.uk
                ebrahim@bycs.org.uk
                andrew.farmer@phc.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                15 June 2020
                15 June 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 157
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4991.5, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, , University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, ; Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG UK
                [2 ]Centre for BME Health, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW UK
                [3 ]Bangladesh Youth & Cultural Shomiti (BYCS), 30-32 Biddulph Street, Leicester, LE2 1BF UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8299-6646
                Article
                1045
                10.1186/s12874-020-01045-4
                7296709
                32539718
                356ec113-572d-4ef2-ad73-b99d0e2c8fc7
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 28 February 2019
                : 9 June 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007602, Programme Grants for Applied Research;
                Award ID: RP-PG-1214-20003
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Medicine
                focus groups,south asian,diabetes,seldom heard,qualitative methods,reflexivity,patient and public involvement

                Comments

                Comment on this article