Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative methods.

PURPOSE

To compare two different approaches to performing focus groups and individual interviews, an open approach, and an approach based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).

METHODS

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis attended focus groups (n = 49) and individual interviews (n = 21). Time, number of concepts, ICF categories identified, and sample size for reaching saturation of data were compared. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and independent t tests were performed.

RESULTS

With an overall time of 183 h, focus groups were more time consuming than individual interviews (t = 9.782; P < 0.001). In the open approach, 188 categories in the focus groups and 102 categories in the interviews were identified compared to the 231 and 110 respective categories identified in the ICF-based approach. Saturation of data was reached after performing five focus groups and nine individual interviews in the open approach and five focus groups and 12 individual interviews in the ICF-based approach.

CONCLUSION

The method chosen should depend on the objective of the study, issues related to the health condition, and the study's participants. We recommend performing focus groups if the objective of the study is to comprehensively explore the patient perspective.