Factores situacionales en estudios de grupos focales

una revisión sistemática

  • Arne Orvik, Mg. Pol. Sc. Aalesund University College
  • Astrid Berland, Mg. Pol. Sc. Stord/Haugesund University College
  • Lillebeth Larun, Ph.D. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
  • Karin C. Ringsberg, Ph.D. Nordic School of Public Health
Palabras clave: grupos focales, profesionales de la salud, métodos mixtos, factores situacionales, análisis de plantillas, salud ocupacional

Resumen

El objetivo del estudio que presentan estas páginas fue determinar cómo se expresan, utilizan y analizan los factores contextuales en los datos recolectados a partir de las discusiones en grupos focales. El estudio incluyó una evaluación de cómo la presentación metodológica de los factores contextuales puede influir y mejorar la fiabilidad de los artículos. Se hizo una revisión sistemática para identificar los artículos que informaran —entre los profesionales del área de la salud— sobre su nivel de estrés, salud y mecanismos para sobrellevar situaciones difíciles en su lugar de trabajo, los cuales fueron utilizados en el análisis. Como punto de partida se empleó el marco de Vicsek de factores situacionales para el análisis de resultados de grupos focales y así se halló que en tales artículos los factores contextuales eran descritos con mayor frecuencia en la sección del método y con menos frecuencia en las secciones “Resultados” y “Discusión”. El marco de Vicsek
para el análisis de resultados de grupos focales abarca seis dimensiones contextuales y metodológicas: los factores interaccionales, las características personales de los participantes, el moderador, el ambiente, los factores de tiempo y el contenido de las discusiones. Sin embargo, se evidenció que el marco no incluye una consideración sobre la seguridad psicológica, las cuestiones éticas o la información institucional. Para profundizar en el análisis de los resultados de grupos focales, se argumenta que los factores contextuales deben ser analizados como dimensiones metodológicas y ser considerados como un concepto de sensibilización. La credibilidad, la posibilidad de confirmación, la fiabilidad y la capacidad de transferencia se pueden fortalecer al emplear, reportar y discutir los factores contextuales en detalle. El estudio contribuye a esclarecer la forma en que la presentación de informes sobre datos contextuales puede enriquecer el análisis de los resultados de grupos focales y fortalecer su nivel de confiabilidad. Investigaciones futuras deben centrarse en presentar informes claros de los factores contextuales, así como continuar desarrollando el modelo de Vicsek para mejorar la precisión y la transferencia de información.

Originalmente publicado en International Journal of Qualitative Methods (2013), 12, 338-358. Copyright 2013: Orvik, Larun, Berland y Ringsberg. Traducido al español con permiso de los titulares de los derechos de autor.

Biografía del autor/a

Arne Orvik, Mg. Pol. Sc., Aalesund University College

Arne Orvik es Magíster en Ciencias Políticas. Profesor asociado del Department of Health Sciences, de la Aalesund University College (Noruega).

Astrid Berland, Mg. Pol. Sc., Stord/Haugesund University College

Astrid Berland es Magíster en Ciencias. Profesora asociada del Department of Nursing Education de la Stord/Haugesund University College (Haugesund, Noruega). Correo electrónico: astrid.berland@hsh.no

Lillebeth Larun, Ph.D., Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services

Lillebeth Larun es Doctora en Filosofía. Se desempeña como investigadora en el Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (Oslo, Noruega). Correo electrónico: Lillebeth.Larun@kunnskapssenteret.no

Karin C. Ringsberg, Ph.D., Nordic School of Public Health

Karin C. Ringsberg es psicoterapeuta, pedagoga, magíster en Ciencias Sociales y doctora en Filosofía. Profesora emerita en el Center of Health Promotion de la Nordic School of Public Health (Gothenburg, Suecia). Correo electrónico: karin.ringsberg@gu.se

Citas

Asbury, J. E. (1995). Overview of focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 414-420.
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. En H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie.
Barbour, R. (2007). Doing focus groups. Londres: SAGE.
Benoit, L. G., Veach, P. M., & LeRoy, B. S. (2007). When you care enough to do your very best: Genetic counselor experiences of compassion fatigue. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16(3), 299-312.
Berland, A., Natvig, G. K., & Gundersen, D. (2008). Patient safety and job-related stress: A focus group study. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 24(2), 90-97.
Blomberg, K., & Sahlberg-Blom, E. (2007). Closeness and distance: A way of handling difficult situations in daily care. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(2), 244-254.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19, 3-10.
Blythe, J., Baumann, A., & Giovannetti, P. (2001). Nurses’ experiences of restructuring in three Ontario hospitals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 61-68.
Clarke, J. B. (1999). Hermeneutic analysis: A qualitative decision trail. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 36(5), 363-369.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Using codes and code manuals: A template organizing style of interpretation. En B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (2a ed., pp. 163-77). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Duggleby, W. (2005). What about focus group interaction data? Qualitative Health Research, 15(6), 832-840.
Fern, E. F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 1-13.
Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced focus group research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Freeman, T. (2006). “Best practice” in focus group research: Making sense of different views. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(5), 491-497.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. (2a ed.). Cambridge, Reino Unido: Polity Press.
Gilje, N., & Grimen, H. (1995). Samfunnsvitenskapenes forutsetninger [Las premisas de las ciencias sociales] (2a ed.). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105-112.
Grbich, C., Abernethy, A. P., Shelby-James, T., Fazekas, B., & Currow, D. C. (2008). Creating a research culture in a palliative care service environment: A qualitative study of the evolution of staff attitudes to research during a large longitudinal controlled trial. Journal of Palliative Care, 24(2), 100-109.
Grim, B. J., Harmon, A. H., & Gromis, J. C. (2006). Focused group interviews as an innovative Quanti-Qualitative Methodology (QQM): Integrating quantitative elements into a qualitative methodology.
The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 516-537.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. Londres: SAGE.
Hoddinott, P., & Pill, R. (1997). Qualitative research interviewing by general practitioners: A personal view of the opportunities and the pitfalls. Family Practice, 14(4), 307-312.
Hollander, J. A. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(5), 602-637.
Kälvemark, S., Höglund, A. T., Hansson, M. G., Westerholm, P., & Arnetz, B. (2004). Living with conflicts: Ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health care system. Social Science & Medicine, 58(6), 1075-1084.
King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. En C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 25-270). Londres: SAGE.
King, N., Carroll, C., Newton, P., & Dornan, T. (2002). “You can’t cure it so you have to endure it”: The experience of adaptation to diabetic renal disease. Qualitative Health Research, 12(3), 329-346.
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103-121.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Londres: SAGE.
MacDougall, C. (1997). The devil’s advocate: A strategy to avoid groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 7(4), 532-541.
Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358(9280), 483-488.
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2011). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (2a ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.
Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1998). The focus group kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Morgan, P. A., & Moffatt, C. J. (2008). Non-healing leg ulcers and the nurse-patient relationship. Part 2: The nurse’s perspective. International Wound Journal, 5(2), 332-339.
Morse, J. (2003). Principles of mixed-and multi-method research design. En A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Öhman, A., Hegg, K., & Dahlgren, L. (2005). A stimulating, practicebased job facing increased stress: Clinical supervisors’ perceptions of professional role, physiotherapy education and the status of the profession. Advances in Physiotherapy, 7(3), 114-122.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization (6a ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Porter, S. (2007). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Reasserting realism in qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(1), 79-86.
Raczka, R. (2005). A focus group enquiry into stress experienced by staff working with people with challenging behaviours. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 9(2), 167-177.
Reed, J., & Payton, V. R. (1997). Focus groups: Issues of analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(4), 765-771.
Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310.
Selamat, M. H., & Hashim, A. H. (2008). A qualitative decision trail in the hermeneutic analysis: Evidence from the case study. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(3), 41-55.
Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 345-352.
Somer, E., Buchbinder, E., Peled-Avram, M., & Ben-Yizhack, Y. (2004). The stress and coping of Israeli emergency room social workers following terrorist attacks. Qualitative Health Research, 14(8), 1077-1093.
Stige, B., Malterud, K., & Midtgarden, T. (2009). Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(10), 1504-1516.
Thomas, E. J., Sherwood, G. D., Mulhollem, J. L., Sexton, J. B., & Helmreich, R. L. (2004). Working together in the neonatal intensive care unit: Provider perspectives. Journal of Perinatology, 24(9), 552-59.
Twohig, P. L., & Putnam, W. (2002). Group interviews in primary care research: Advancing the state of the art or ritualized research? Family Practice, 19(3), 278-284.
Vicsek, L. (2007). A scheme for analyzing the results of focus groups. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(4), 20-34.
Vicsek, L. (2010). Issues in the analysis of focus groups: Generalisability, quantifiability, treatment of context and quotations. The Qualitative Report, 15(1), 122-141.
Waterton, C., & Wynne, B. (1999). Can focus groups access community views? En R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research (pp. 127-143). Londres: SAGE.
Watmough, S., Garden, A., & Taylor, D. (2006). Pre-registration house officers’ views on studying under a reformed medical curriculum in the UK. Medical Education, 40(9), 893-899.
Webb, C., & Kevern, J. (2001). Focus groups as a research method: A critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 3(6), 798-805.
Whitehead, L. (2004). Enhancing the quality of hermeneutic research: Decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45(5), 512-518.
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus groups in health research: Exploring the meanings of health and illness. Journal of Health Psychology, 3(3), 329-348.
Publicado
2014-07-07
Cómo citar
Orvik, A., Berland, A., Larun, L., & Ringsberg, K. (2014). Factores situacionales en estudios de grupos focales. Paradigmas, 6(2), 87-127. Recuperado a partir de http://publicaciones.unitec.edu.co/index.php/paradigmas/article/view/47
Sección
Artículos