Synnot Anneliese, Hill Sophie, Summers Michael, Taylor Michael
1La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
Qual Health Res. 2014 Mar;24(3):431-8. doi: 10.1177/1049732314523840. Epub 2014 Feb 26.
We compared face-to-face focus groups and an online forum in qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and family members. Although the merits and challenges of online qualitative research have been considered by others, there is limited literature directly comparing these two data collection methods for people with disability or chronic illness. Twenty-seven people participated in one of four focus groups and 33 people took part in an online forum. Demographic and MS-related characteristics were similar between the two groups, with a slight nonsignificant trend toward nonmetropolitan residence in online forum participants. There was a high level of overlap in the themes generated between groups. Participant responses in the online forum were more succinct and on-topic, yet in the focus groups interaction was greater. Online qualitative research methods can facilitate research participation for people with chronic illness or disability, yielding generally comparable information to that gathered via face-to-face methods.
我们在针对多发性硬化症（MS）患者及其家庭成员的定性研究中，对比了面对面焦点小组和在线论坛这两种方式。尽管其他人已经考虑过在线定性研究的优点和挑战，但直接比较这两种数据收集方法用于残疾或慢性病患者的文献有限。27人参与了四个焦点小组中的一个，33人参与了一个在线论坛。两组之间的人口统计学特征和与MS相关的特征相似，在线论坛参与者中居住在非大都市地区的比例有轻微但不显著的趋势。两组生成的主题有高度重叠。在线论坛中参与者的回答更简洁且切题，但在焦点小组中互动性更强。在线定性研究方法可以促进慢性病或残疾患者参与研究，产生的信息通常与通过面对面方法收集的信息相当。
