Lessons from Refining a Focus Group Protocol with Veterans: Adapted Think-alouds and Accommodated Focus Groups for Persons with Traumatic Brain Injury 8263

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Rebecca Campbell-Montalvo, Jennifer Bogner, Tracy Kretzmer, Jolie Haun, Megan Moore, Risa Nakase-Richardson
{"title":"Lessons from Refining a Focus Group Protocol with Veterans: Adapted Think-alouds and Accommodated Focus Groups for Persons with Traumatic Brain Injury 8263","authors":"Rebecca Campbell-Montalvo,&nbsp;Jennifer Bogner,&nbsp;Tracy Kretzmer,&nbsp;Jolie Haun,&nbsp;Megan Moore,&nbsp;Risa Nakase-Richardson","doi":"10.1016/j.apmr.2025.01.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To improve research involving people with traumatic brain injury (TBI), Project I-HEAL sought to refine a focus group guide for those who may have cognitive challenges. Think-alouds (Van Someren et al., 1994) were used, but were adapted so participants could best evaluate the guide. The guide's purpose was to elicit data on acceptable practices during in-patient rehabilitation from veterans with TBI.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Four mixed-method qualitative sessions were used: 1 unstructured focus group (Brinkmann, 2014), 2 adapted think-alouds, and 1 structured focus group guide pilot.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>The setting was virtual (ie, Teams). Participants were a veteran research engagement group from a VA hospital.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Seven participants (4 persons with TBI and 3 caregivers) participated in the first and fourth session. The second and third sessions each comprised a subsample of 2 couples (1 person with TBI and their caregiver).</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>The first session included study overview and participant-driven discussion about practices in which researchers should engage. This was followed by adapted think-aloud sessions in which real-time modifications to the guide based on feedback were made. Then, a pilot was done to test focus group guide usability.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>Outcome measures were the feedback given in the first session (ie, general advice about veterans with TBI and their caregivers participating in research), the second and third sessions (ie, specific item rephrasing offered by participants), and the fourth session (ie, determinations of whether people understood items).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In session 1, participants’ comments coalesced around 2 themes: researchers should provide materials to participants in advance; researchers should allow plenty of time for participants’ cognition. In sessions 2-3, participants offered rephrasing of items to reduce cognitive burden, such as by suggesting direct and shorter sentences. In session 4, the refined guide was piloted successfully, although it took more time than other focus groups due to cognitive processing time needed and requests for redirection and repetition.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This novel, adapted think-aloud procedure offers advantages over others that organize and analyze think-aloud data using codebooks with feedback being used to later revise measures (eg, Ahmadi et al., 2022; Kleyen et al., 2017). Using the present novel approach, researchers can ensure they are understanding feedback accurately and participants can articulate whether changes speak to their feedback. In addition, to allow for participant cognition (Norman et al., 2019), research using focus groups with participants with TBI may benefit from allotting 50% more time and including fewer members (ie, 4 participants rather than 6-8).</div></div><div><h3>Disclosures</h3><div>none.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8313,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","volume":"106 4","pages":"Pages e10-e11"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000399932500053X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To improve research involving people with traumatic brain injury (TBI), Project I-HEAL sought to refine a focus group guide for those who may have cognitive challenges. Think-alouds (Van Someren et al., 1994) were used, but were adapted so participants could best evaluate the guide. The guide's purpose was to elicit data on acceptable practices during in-patient rehabilitation from veterans with TBI.

Design

Four mixed-method qualitative sessions were used: 1 unstructured focus group (Brinkmann, 2014), 2 adapted think-alouds, and 1 structured focus group guide pilot.

Setting

The setting was virtual (ie, Teams). Participants were a veteran research engagement group from a VA hospital.

Participants

Seven participants (4 persons with TBI and 3 caregivers) participated in the first and fourth session. The second and third sessions each comprised a subsample of 2 couples (1 person with TBI and their caregiver).

Interventions

The first session included study overview and participant-driven discussion about practices in which researchers should engage. This was followed by adapted think-aloud sessions in which real-time modifications to the guide based on feedback were made. Then, a pilot was done to test focus group guide usability.

Main Outcome Measures

Outcome measures were the feedback given in the first session (ie, general advice about veterans with TBI and their caregivers participating in research), the second and third sessions (ie, specific item rephrasing offered by participants), and the fourth session (ie, determinations of whether people understood items).

Results

In session 1, participants’ comments coalesced around 2 themes: researchers should provide materials to participants in advance; researchers should allow plenty of time for participants’ cognition. In sessions 2-3, participants offered rephrasing of items to reduce cognitive burden, such as by suggesting direct and shorter sentences. In session 4, the refined guide was piloted successfully, although it took more time than other focus groups due to cognitive processing time needed and requests for redirection and repetition.

Conclusions

This novel, adapted think-aloud procedure offers advantages over others that organize and analyze think-aloud data using codebooks with feedback being used to later revise measures (eg, Ahmadi et al., 2022; Kleyen et al., 2017). Using the present novel approach, researchers can ensure they are understanding feedback accurately and participants can articulate whether changes speak to their feedback. In addition, to allow for participant cognition (Norman et al., 2019), research using focus groups with participants with TBI may benefit from allotting 50% more time and including fewer members (ie, 4 participants rather than 6-8).

Disclosures

none.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.70%
发文量
495
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation publishes original, peer-reviewed research and clinical reports on important trends and developments in physical medicine and rehabilitation and related fields. This international journal brings researchers and clinicians authoritative information on the therapeutic utilization of physical, behavioral and pharmaceutical agents in providing comprehensive care for individuals with chronic illness and disabilities. Archives began publication in 1920, publishes monthly, and is the official journal of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Its papers are cited more often than any other rehabilitation journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信