ライフサイエンスコーパス: focus group

1 ed through open-ended responses and a formal focus group.

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

3 atients were recruited to participate in two focus groups.

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

5 ompleted a questionnaire and participated in focus groups.

6 HRQOL measures and transcripts of RA patient focus groups.

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

8 ty-seven candidates and recipients joined 23 focus groups.

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

10 ased on knowledge gaps discussed in provider focus groups.

11 rom participants in 3 geographically diverse focus groups.

12 D] age, 43.4 [11.0] years) participated in 6 focus groups.

13 and input from expert clinicians and patient focus groups.

14 evidenced by 70.5% participant preference in focus groups.

15 participate in 1 of 12 one-time qualitative focus groups.

16 mortality conferences, as well as specialty focus groups.

17 from patients and families from surveys and focus groups.

18 Fifty-three patients participated in online focus groups.

19 jury care identified from patient and family focus groups.

20 NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups.

21 aterials for deriving iPSCs based on patient focus groups.

22 c US medical schools and conducted 7 virtual focus groups (1 per institution) from September 2022 to

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

24 34 total participants (interviews, 20 [59%]; focus groups, 14 [41%]), mean (SD) age was 59.1 (4.8) ye

25 After 2 young peoples' focus groups, 2 additional outcomes were added to the fi

26 sing virtual semistructured interviews and 4 focus groups (3-4 participants per group).

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

28 urgery residents and clinical fellows) and a focus group (9 participants, all clinical residents who

29 A total of 14 mothers engaged in the focus group; 9 (75%) were aged 30 to 39 years, and 8 (66

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

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

32 iodiversity finance key informants and three focus groups across Europe, we explore opportunities and

33 f direct observation, 222 interviews, and 18 focus groups across six telemedicine facilities and 10 t

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

35 All focus groups agreed that increased organ availability is

36 Focus groups and a postal survey of research consumers w

37 eDelphi method involving consensus-building focus groups and a survey conducted from January 10 thro

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

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

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

41 th farmers' selection criteria surveyed with focus groups and interviews at the sampling site in 2017

42 Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded, profess

43 ND PARTICIPANTS: For this qualitative study, focus groups and interviews with HHAs were facilitated i

44 Focus groups and interviews with intervention participan

45 litative study of key stakeholders including focus groups and interviews.

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

47 ng committee, participating in preconference focus groups and learning sessions, speaking at the conf

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

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

50 We used focus groups and semi-structured interviews.

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

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

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

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

55 Concept elicitation interviews, focus groups, and cognitive debriefing interviews were c

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

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

58 ifteen statements reached consensus from the focus groups, and of those, 12 reached consensus from su

59 Five themes emerged from the focus groups, and the groups reported more discussion of

60 thods consisted of individual interviews and focus groups, and thematic analysis was used to analyse

61 water point observations, household surveys, focus groups, and water quality testing.

62 Interviews and focus groups assessed acceptability.

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

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

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

66 ity by hospital users, the TEPs, and patient focus group, (b) implicit case review (k 0.72 for UTI; k

67 s for cultivating a successful women-in-STEM-focused group based upon survey results from our own sci

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

69 The focus groups comprised volunteers identified by the Clev

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

71 Drug Development Tool Qualification process, focus groups, concept elicitation, and cognitive debrief

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

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

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

75 Focus group data from 111 adolescents in 6 intervention

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

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

78 et to discuss progress and challenges; and a focus group discussion (FGD), consisting of trial staff,

79 Focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant intervi

80 Focus group discussions (FGDs) were also conducted with

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

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

83 icipant observation, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions and analyzed using NVivo 12 soft

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

85 We held focus group discussions and key informant interviews wit

86 hese topic areas and related issues informed focus group discussions at an in-person workshop held in

87 Baseline survey, study visit notes and focus group discussions characterized treatment challeng

88 Baseline survey, study visit notes, and focus group discussions characterized treatment challeng

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

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

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

92 We report themes from the 4 focus group discussions that are most closely linked to

93 Focus group discussions were conducted to explain the qu

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

95 Focus group discussions were facilitated using an in-dep

96 Six focus group discussions were held with patients with adv

97 Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and co

98 Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim.

99 Focus group discussions were undertaken with 18 males; 4

100 Case reviews and focus group discussions were used to determine feasibili

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

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

103 rams; 3) stakeholder in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with WRA and community members;

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

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

106 a qualitative study that centered on patient focus group discussions, conversations with IBD healthca

107 Focus group discussions, interviews, recipe documentatio

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

109 Focus groups discussions, guided by a structured intervi

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

111 rporates patients' insights obtained through focused group discussions across the BIG-NABCG networks.

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

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

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

115 evaluated by the expert panel and clinician focus groups, emphasizing a patient's risk for in-breast

116 Focus group engagement resulted in 29 priority problem s

117 Conducting focus groups entirely online might also have influenced

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

119 Focus groups explored awareness and beliefs about causat

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

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

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

123 Focus group facilitator used open-ended questions and sc

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

125 All women involved in the focus groups felt that their symptoms had negatively imp

126 Focus group findings reflected Job Demand-Resource theor

127 alysis of qualitative data from debriefs and focus groups from a mixed methods study of errors and po

128 community-engaged methods to conduct virtual focus groups from November 16, 2020, to January 28, 2021

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

130 The focus group generated a checklist with 56 items divided

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

132 ; 76 female and 64 White) participated in 14 focus groups (groups ranged from 3-22 participants).

133 These focus groups identified strategies that would be expecte

134 er 2023 and April 2024 and a member-checking focus group in February 2025.

135 ative study, HBCU advisers participated in a focus group in October 2019 or in semistructured intervi

136 Based on 44 focus groups in 22 countries across the Global North and

137 Drawing from 44 focus groups in 22 countries, we map technical and socie

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

139 programs using site visits, interviews, and focus groups in both facilities providing remote care an

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

141 Focus groups included older adult patients (age >=75 yea

142 Three focus groups, including 31 community members from divers

143 easure, captures features elucidated through focus groups, including symptoms, emotions, functioning,

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

145 Focus group interviews were conducted by using a moderat

146 th inflammatory bowel disease patients and 2 focus group interviews with 11 healthcare professionals

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

148 Focus group interviews, using a two-stage model, were pe

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

150 testing and clinical assessments, structured focus-group interviews, and psychometric testing.

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

152 Focus groups involving older adults, their families, hea

153 Enrolled patients participated in a focus group lasting approximately 90 minutes.

154 topic areas and issues, through facilitated focus groups, leading to the formation of four to five r

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

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

157 Focus group members reinforced these findings and highli

158 and also a vision for the future of what the Focus Groups might one day become.

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

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

161 Nineteen focus groups (n = 122 participants).

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

163 terviewed singularly (n = 9) or as part of 3 focus groups (n = 14) using Zoom video communication.

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

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

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

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

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

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

170 d comprised staff interviews (n=11), student focus groups (n=15), and observations (n=5).

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

172 gs >2 support validity) after interviews and focus groups, nominations of 3 most important factors fo

173 hrough literature review complemented with a focus group of 8 kidney pretransplant patients, was admi

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

175 A focus group of trauma specialists was organized to devel

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

177 First, a series of organ-specific focus groups of kidney, liver, heart, and lung patients

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

179 Focus groups of nursing staff met to discuss their perce

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

181 Seventeen focus groups of older African Americans residing in the

182 Six focus groups of ophthalmologists and optometrists who pr

183 Focus groups of patients actively considering TKR were c

184 ng a self-administered electronic survey and focus groups of principal investigators (PIs) and projec

185 ong healthcare providers (n = 87) and online focus groups of survivors (n = 22) resulted in unique ca

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

187 survey and participated in a semistructured focus group or interview between September 1, 2021, and

188 e final analysis (17 quantitative surveys, 8 focus group or interview studies, 2 mixed methods studie

189 d environment, which they discussed in small focus groups over the course of 5 weeks.

190 homelessness services (n=41 interviews, two focus groups); participant observation across a range of

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

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

193 Focus group participants indicated that industry manipul

194 A total of 22 focus group participants reinforced these strategies wit

195 Focus group participants shared their experiences with m

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

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

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

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

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

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

202 transition barriers prior to interviews and focus groups, ratings on importance of SMART-E factors (

203 Focus groups responded favorably, translation problems w

204 morbidity and mortality conferences, and 355 focus groups responses.

205 Analysis of the focus group revealed 3 themes: 1) inequity of the collab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

215 ic review of published literature, a patient focus group study, a practical issues summary, and a gui

216 Feedback from both our survey and focus groups suggests future directions for sonification

217 er-led organizational structure (called "CRS Focus Groups") that provided new opportunities for membe

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

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

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

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

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

223 , we combined desk reviews, simulations, and focus groups to diagnose barriers to ICS adoption.

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

225 week later, the 18 women participated in two focus groups to qualitatively evaluate the intervention.

226 an were invited to participate in Zoom-based focus groups to understand the attitudes, acceptability,

227 s initiative and motivation for building the Focus Groups, to the progress made to date and also a vi

228 Focus groups took place between April and September 2021

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

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

231 Focus group transcripts underwent thematic analysis, fro

232 Focus group transcripts were analysed using framework an

233 Focus group transcripts were reviewed alongside the on-s

234 team performed thematic content analysis of focus group transcripts.

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

236 After two young peoples' focus groups, two additional outcomes were added to the

237 s, including patients and clinicians through focus groups, user testing sessions and prototype review

238 a were iteratively analyzed in parallel with focus groups using constructivist grounded theory method

239 r 2023 and April 2024, and a member-checking focus group was conducted in February 2025.

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

241 o generate codes from the interviews and the focus groups was applied by reviewing transcripts and no

242 ata collection using in-depth interviews and focus groups was conducted with national and community s

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

244 fter four rounds of expert surveys and three focus groups, we identified 18 CMOCs.

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

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

247 The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed.

248 Eight of nine focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbati

249 Focus groups were carried out in isiZulu language, audio

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

251 Focus groups were conducted for program development, and

252 Eighteen semistructured focus groups were conducted from November 17 to December

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

254 , attitudes and practices questionnaire, and focus groups were conducted in communities of Restrepo,

255 Focus groups were conducted to better understand HCP per

256 A total of 8 focus groups were conducted with 29 participants (mean [

257 Eight focus groups were conducted with 62 Southeast Asian immi

258 Twelve focus groups were conducted with 68 adults with arthriti

259 A total of 13 focus groups were conducted with 70 participants (50 [71

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

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

262 Focus groups were conducted with adolescents and childre

263 : In this qualitative study, semi-structured focus groups were conducted with firefighters/EMTs and p

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

265 A total of 8 focus groups were conducted, including 4 in Spanish and

266 Ten focus groups were held with 39 total ESKD patients aged

267 AND PARTICIPANTS: In this qualitative study, focus groups were interviewed between July 2023 and Marc

268 Focus groups were used to collect feedback on five diagn

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

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

271 nts (ranging from 6 to 8 participants) and 1 focus group with 10 Spanish-speaking LEP patients, this

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

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

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

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

276 Six focus groups with 35 dog owners were conducted, and thei

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

278 Among the 6 focus groups with 6 to 8 EP patients (ranging from 6 to

279 We conducted 8 focus groups with 61 patients with HF and phone intervie

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

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

282 ive study conducted semistructured, in-depth focus groups with Black and Latinx participants from Mar

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

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

285 ach was used through in-depth interviews and focus groups with educators, researchers, and healthcare

286 each wish; and semistructured interviews and focus groups with family members, clinicians, and manage

287 Two focus groups with health care professionals were held to

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

289 racted and augmented through discussions and focus groups with key stakeholders.

290 f change in linear growth; 3) interviews and focus groups with national experts and community stakeho

291 CIPANTS: This qualitative study used virtual focus groups with parents who attended a local bereaveme

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

293 nterviews with 33 clinicians, and held three focus groups with patients who were currently using or h

294 Findings from 15 focus groups with PEH (n = 53) revealed the need for tru

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

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

297 During the 2019 IDWeek, we conducted focus groups with women faculty members at all ranks and

298 these outcomes for inclusion in the COS, (3) focus groups with young people to identify missing outco

299 measure, modified by a 10-member participant focus group, with 20 items scored along a 5-point Likert

300 research methods conducted 4 semistructured focus groups, with 3 to 6 English-speaking adolescents (