ライフサイエンスコーパス: focus group

1 was led by an expert panel and piloted on a focus group.

2 s using traditional benchmarks, surveys, and focus groups.

3 ompleted a questionnaire and participated in focus groups.

4 HRQOL measures and transcripts of RA patient focus groups.

5 domains of QOL affected by GCA in audiotaped focus groups.

6 sions and quality of life, supplemented with focus groups.

7 rom participants in 3 geographically diverse focus groups.

8 jury care identified from patient and family focus groups.

9 aterials for deriving iPSCs based on patient focus groups.

10 om June 3, 2005, to June 3, 2015), a patient focus group (11 patients with early and metastatic color

11 ed the questionnaire and participated in the focus groups, 4 correctly identified both the dose and d

12 Using focus groups, a 48-item PAC-QoL questionnaire was develo

13 ctors identified by the patients via support/focus groups, a diagnostic and prognostic tool was devel

14 cts (15 patients, 33 family members) in nine focus groups across three sites, a shared definition of

15 All focus groups agreed that increased organ availability is

16 Focus groups and a postal survey of research consumers w

17 mbers of the community participated in eight focus groups and commissioned on-street surveys.

18 sons for this difference identified from the focus groups and diaries included the anklet acting as a

19 FINDINGS: This was a qualitative study using focus groups and in-depth interviews.

20 Focus groups and interviews with intervention participan

21 ive design, data collection methods involved focus groups and interviews.

22 ent underwent additional analysis in student focus groups and pilot testing.

23 tool was developed from a literature review, focus groups and responses to a postal questionnaire.

24 We used focus groups and semi-structured interviews.

25 neral internal medicine faculty, and we held focus groups and structured interviews with general inte

26 ted in a formal consensus process, including focus groups and two Delphi rounds.

27 Focus groups and Web-based survey of fellows and junior

28 ng a systematic literature review, an expert focus group, and cognitive interviews with HBV patients.

29 ctions data, a survey of landlords, landlord focus groups, and health department data on children's b

30 food shopping were more widely described in focus groups, and many individuals felt that local shopp

31 Interviews and focus groups assessed acceptability.

32 idea served as the basis for discussion in a focus group at the recent National Academies Keck Future

33 We convened 4 focus groups at senior centers and 2 groups of surgeons

34 slated into the local language and underwent focus group augmentation and pilot testing.

35 The 32-item LLQ, derived from the content of focus group comments by persons with ARM, has good const

36 The focus groups comprised volunteers identified by the Clev

37 We collated symptoms of VCD from focus groups comprising patients and healthcare professi

38 Data were collected through focus groups conducted at each of the participating nurs

39 We also collected qualitative data through a focus group consultation and 19 key informant interviews

40 Using thematic analysis of focus group content, we identified 5 guiding criteria fo

41 Evidence from content analyses, focus group data, and intensive interviews supports the

42 Focus-group data suggest presenting options and/or equip

43 Focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant intervi

44 Focus group discussions (FGDs) were also conducted with

45 GY AND MAIN FINDINGS: During 2010-11 over 25 focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with clan leade

46 care protocols and guidelines availability, focus group discussions and administration of a structur

47 om patients, families, and providers through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews.

48 We held focus group discussions and key informant interviews wit

49 We used semistructured questionnaires and focus group discussions in 1 rural and 1 urban local gov

50 h household heads of the new houses and five focus group discussions including neighbours of each gro

51 collected via interviews with older people, focus group discussions involving staff, suggestion box

52 Focus group discussions were conducted to explain the qu

53 ty-two in-depth individual interviews and 23 focus group discussions were conducted.

54 Six focus group discussions were held with patients with adv

55 Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and co

56 Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim.

57 Focus group discussions were undertaken with 18 males; 4

58 Based on focus group discussions with midwifery students, we refi

59 h experts, 40 face-to-face interviews, and 5 focus group discussions with multiethnic and multilingua

60 Data gathered from an online survey, focus group discussions, and previously collected data f

61 ve research, comprising in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, behavior trials, and a combinat

62 Focus group discussions, interviews, recipe documentatio

63 ving 40 semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions.

64 th qualitative data was obtained through six focus-group discussions with the women's groups, three w

65 t comprised 28 semi-structured interviews, a focus group, documents relating to clinical coding stand

66 ys; support for querying in bulk; and a user focus-group driven interface design.

67 mmunication preferences were assessed in six focus groups during 2012.

68 ive methods (in-depth patient interviews and focus groups, expert opinion and literature review) were

69 Diaries and focus groups explored participants' experiences of the t

70 Participants in the focus groups expressed interest in learning about method

71 Curriculum development included focus groups, extensive review of available curricula, a

72 Focus group facilitator used open-ended questions and sc

73 ted by expert consensus and revised based on focus group feedback, was administered to 95 female brea

74 conducted 5 youth (11-16 years) and 4 adult focus groups from November 2011 to March 2012.

75 The focus group generated a checklist with 56 items divided

76 qualitative phase (17 patient interviews, 3 focus groups) generated 144 potential scale items and a

77 These focus groups identified strategies that would be expecte

78 use participatory mapping of 31 communities, focus groups in 28 communities, and analyses of forest c

79 pproaches were used to develop and conduct 6 focus groups in conjunction with community partners in 3

80 Three focus groups, including 31 community members from divers

81 onents, and (3) directed content analysis of focus group/interview transcripts.

82 Focus group interviews were conducted by using a moderat

83 riangulated methods including individual and focus group interviews, observation and documentary anal

84 , we conducted semistructured individual and focus-group interviews, analyzing transcripts using a qu

85 In total, we reviewed the results of 186 focus groups involving more than 1500 children and adult

86 dating findings of the literature review and focus group meeting, a list of 40 outcomes was presented

87 Patient focus group meetings (8 early or metastatic BC patients)

88 Focus group members reinforced these findings and highli

89 o refused participation in the trial and the focus groups (n = 10).

90 starting with the identification of items in focus groups (n = 12), item reduction and subsequent cro

91 Nineteen focus groups (n = 122 participants).

92 s in Australia and Canada participated in 14 focus groups (n = 123).

93 le; median age, 43 y) via surveys (n = 135), focus groups (n = 27), and semistructured interviews (n

94 interviews (n = 22), walk-throughs (n = 5), focus groups (n = 31), database searches, context questi

95 al sites, 10 key informant interviews and 10 focus groups (n = 39) were conducted between July 2012 a

96 semistructured in-depth interviews (n = 51), focus groups (n = 4), and documents analysis.

97 Through focus groups (n=10) of stroke survivors (n=39) and careg

98 ree states in Australia to participate in 12 focus groups (n=113).

99 Five focus groups (n=28) using a semi-structured interview gu

100 specific questionnaires with findings from a focus group of ALI survivors.

101 A focus group of trauma specialists was organized to devel

102 nd consideration of experts' opinions, and 2 focus groups of 16 subjects with SSc and GIT involvement

103 The prototype was tested in focus groups of mixed age, sex, ethnicity, and education

104 Focus groups of nursing staff met to discuss their perce

105 r questionnaire items was identified through focus groups of older adults with ARM and those exhibiti

106 Seventeen focus groups of older African Americans residing in the

107 Six focus groups of ophthalmologists and optometrists who pr

108 Focus groups of patients actively considering TKR were c

109 Snowball sampling was used for the focus groups, of whom 4 were non-native and 7 native spe

110 Preliminary findings were presented to focus group participants for validation at each site, an

111 and church leaders identified and recruited focus group participants from 3 black churches in Flint,

112 Focus group participants indicated that industry manipul

113 Concerns raised by focus group participants were compared with thematic con

114 omen comprised 64% of youth and 90% of adult focus group participants.

115 views (n = 24, 12 male, 12 female) and three focus groups (participants n = 27, 6 male, 21 female).

116 basis for documentation, 12 years of support/focus group patient feedback from the nearly 1000 attend

117 Patients and parents participated in focus groups; providers participated in individual semi-

118 en) were randomly assigned to receive trauma-focused group psychotherapy or a present-centered compar

119 Focus groups responded favorably, translation problems w

120 However, the focus group revealed the following themes: (a) improved

121 Focus groups, review of guidelines, and an expert panel

122 s conducted including individual interviews, focus groups, secondary data analysis, pre-testing and f

123 Separate, semi-structured focus group sessions were conducted with surgical reside

124 nst a background of information from several focus group sessions with AD-affected families.

125 Three focus group sessions, three online surveys, and one educ

126 Six focus-group sessions were conducted with nursing staff w

127 d 14 women, ages 57-89 years) took part in 6 focus groups stratified according to pain site and sever

128 Firstly, a Focus Group study was performed to identify sensory desc

129 United States have recently met and formed a focus group, the OncoNephrology Forum, under the America

130 uate dose of treatment suggested that trauma-focused group therapy reduced avoidance and numbing and,

131 y did not find a treatment effect for trauma-focused group therapy.

132 ety of Nuclear Medicine convened an Internet Focus group to discuss collaboration using the Internet.

133 New England-area hospital ICUs, and nursing focus groups to describe challenges and barriers that nu

134 sted it in homes with smokers, and conducted focus groups to obtain general opinions.

135 view identified 228 potential items, and the focus group transcripts identified 96 additional items.

136 Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to determine the attitudes of pa

137 Focus group transcripts were reviewed alongside the on-s

138 team performed thematic content analysis of focus group transcripts.

139 Dropout from treatment was higher in trauma-focused group treatment.

140 A semi-structured focus group was conducted with four of the participating

141 bsequently revised with the aid of a patient focus group, was completed by 60 patients with well-defi

142 The transcripts of the interviews and focus groups were analysed thematically for recurrent th

143 The participants in the focus groups were asked to describe their typical intera

144 The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed.

145 The 'pre-PRO' factors from the support/focus groups were compared to the PRO measures as well a

146 Focus groups were conducted for program development, and

147 ative health worker interviews and community focus groups were conducted in 4 African countries (Keny

148 Eight focus groups were conducted with 62 Southeast Asian immi

149 Twelve focus groups were conducted with 68 adults with arthriti

150 Ten focus groups were conducted with 86 African-Americans.

151 Four focus groups were conducted with a total of 17 PCPs: two

152 Focus groups were conducted with adolescents and childre

153 Four focus groups were conducted with people 65 years of age

154 Six patients participated in the focus group, which revealed patient concerns with amnesi

155 icipants from social movements and formative focus groups who then used peer recruitment coupons to r

156 semi-structured interviews with staff and a focus group with members of the Productive Community Ser

157 cking study was conducted with 4 nurses, and focus groups with 11 further nurses.

158 Thirteen focus groups with 114 participants aged between 18 and 7

159 Study 2 comprised 14 focus groups with 32 men and 56 women (ages 56-91 years)

160 Study 1 comprised 28 focus groups with 50 men and 80 women (ages 47-92 years)

161 r experiences of palliative care delivery; 5 focus groups with 64 staff members to explore challenges

162 Six focus groups with adults (n = 44) were conducted.

163 y literature review for proposed indicators, focus groups with cancer patients and family members to

164 xisting body of knowledge and the results of focus groups with children, their parents, and health pr

165 Two focus groups with health care professionals were held to

166 and carers took place in their own homes and focus groups with healthcare professionals were held at

167 structured literature review and a series of focus groups with patients and their spouses, we conduct

168 irect experience with unsuccessful DCD and 5 focus groups with professionals involved in the donation

169 We conducted focus groups with trial participants (n = 13), trial non