Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleMethodology

Split-Session Focus Group Interviews in the Naturalistic Setting of Family Medicine Offices

Michael D. Fetters, Timothy C. Guetterman, Debra Power and Donald E. Nease
The Annals of Family Medicine January 2016, 14 (1) 70-75; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1881
Michael D. Fetters
1Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
MD, MPH, MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mfetters@umich.edu
Timothy C. Guetterman
1Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Debra Power
2Power Marketing Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan
BA, BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Donald E. Nease Jr
3Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Framework of the Split-Session Focus Group Approach

    StepComment
    1. Conduct a joint session with both physicians and staff membersSome aspects of project implementation required a joint discussion with all staff and physicians present
    Questioning is focused on aspects of the system that would affect both parties
    2. Dismiss staff so they can prepare for patientsStaff members are able to follow regular practice workflow
    Physicians can be interviewed without staff present and make comments about potentially sensitive staff issues without concerns about offending anyone
    3. Interview physicians onlyWhile staff are preparing patients, physicians often have relative down time
    Aspects affecting only the physicians could be asked and discussed efficiently without staff being onlookers
    4. Dismiss physicians to resume clinical carePhysicians can complete patient care as usual and even extend into the noon hour without disruption to the usual work schedule
    5. Interview staff only when patient care is completed (eg, before, during, or after lunch)In the usual workflow, staff complete preparing patients for physicians and are available for noon-time discussions
    With physicians out of the room, staff may be more comfortable stating opinions about implementation that they might otherwise feel too inhibited to voice if their employer were present
    • View popup
    Table 2

    The Split-Session Focus Group Procedure (Morning-Start Format)

    SessionaParticipantsActivityComment
    1Staff and physiciansRole play followed by short question and answer for general issuesJoint whole-group format allows general exposure, understanding, and questions
    2Physicians onlyFocus group interview: physician-specific issues are addressedProvides staff time to prepare patients for physician clinical care
    3Staff onlyFocus group interview: staff-specific issues are addressedStaff often finish early, while physicians often run late; focus group interview is more convenient with staff during their lunch break while still leaving some time for lunch
    • ↵a Each session lasts 30 minutes. Third session takes place during lunch break.

    • Note: With the morning-start format shown, the procedure begins before patients arrive in the morning and ends during lunchtime. An alternate lunch-start format is described in Results.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Advantages and Disadvantages of Focus Group Interviews in Naturalistic Settings and Neutral Settings

    SettingAdvantagesDisadvantages
    NaturalisticConvenience for participants
    Participant comfort in the setting
    Immersion in environmental stimuli and setting, allowing for consideration of application of the proposed technologic intervention in their office
    Simple payment mechanism: office receives lump sum for participation
    Potential distraction by impending work to be done when focus group interview completed
    Possible reluctance to criticize own office’s procedures
    Potential lack of space in practice to hold sessions
    Compensation to the practice may have limited benefit for office staff
    NeutralLack of distraction by environmental stimuli
    Lack of distraction by immediacy of the time clock
    Potential sense of security in voicing opinion, especially if negative, about the system under investigation
    Freedom to use the participation incentive as desired
    Need to travel to the location chosen for session
    Expectation that staff members will use their lunch time to participate
    • View popup
    Table 4

    Advantages and Disadvantages of Split-Session Focus Groups and Traditional Focus Groups

    Focus Group ApproachAdvantagesDisadvantages
    Split sessionFits into existing practice workflow
    Generates dialog and interaction among the full group
    Allows gathering of data from distinct subgroups having different perspectives
    Permits staff and physicians to speak freely without the other present
    Allows recruitment of more participants for each session
    Nets an overall cost savings
    Requires that practice must be willing to accommodate focus group interviews at their location
    Necessitates a conference room, waiting room, or other suitable area be available on site to conduct sessions
    Limits time with subgroups, which may yield less rich data
    Traditional (unsplit)Allows ability to conduct multiple groups at one time
    Enables bringing together participants from multiple practices at once
    Yields lower participation rates
    Requires participants to travel to location
    May constrain staff and physicians from speaking freely when other is present
    May require additional incentives

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • The Article in Brief

    Split-Session Focus Group Interviews in the Naturalistic Setting of Family Medicine Offices

    Michael D. Fetters , and colleagues

    Background When recruiting health care professionals to participate in focus group interviews, investigators encounter many challenges, including busy clinic schedules, recruitment, and getting candid responses from diverse participants. To address these challenges, researchers developed a split-session method for conducting focus groups in the practice setting.

    What This Study Found In split-session focus groups, time is divided between sessions with the entire group and with subgroups. This format provides flexibility for researchers to collect data in the office setting while accommodating a practice's workflow needs as much as possible.

    Implications

    • Holding focus group interviews in the practice could increase rates of participation of both physicians and practice staff.
    • Split-session focus group interviews allow efficiency and a greater degree of tailoring interview questions to subgroups.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 14 (1)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 14 (1)
Vol. 14, Issue 1
January/February 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Split-Session Focus Group Interviews in the Naturalistic Setting of Family Medicine Offices
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
20 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Split-Session Focus Group Interviews in the Naturalistic Setting of Family Medicine Offices
Michael D. Fetters, Timothy C. Guetterman, Debra Power, Donald E. Nease
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2016, 14 (1) 70-75; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1881

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Split-Session Focus Group Interviews in the Naturalistic Setting of Family Medicine Offices
Michael D. Fetters, Timothy C. Guetterman, Debra Power, Donald E. Nease
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2016, 14 (1) 70-75; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1881
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • In This Issue: Size Matters
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Joint Display of Integrated Data Collection for Mixed Methods Research: An Illustration From a Pediatric Oncology Quality Improvement Study
  • Patient-Guided Tours: A Patient-Centered Methodology to Understand Patient Experiences of Health Care
  • Putting Evidence Into Practice: An Update on the US Preventive Services Task Force Methods for Developing Recommendations for Preventive Services
Show more Methodology

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Prevention
  • Methods:
    • Qualitative methods
  • Other topics:
    • Research capacity building
    • Communication / decision making

Keywords

  • focus groups
  • qualitative research
  • research methodology
  • research design
  • clinical study
  • family practice
  • primary health care

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine