Focus Group Discussions Clause Samples
The Focus Group Discussions clause establishes the framework for organizing and conducting group sessions aimed at gathering feedback, opinions, or insights from selected participants. Typically, this clause outlines the procedures for participant selection, scheduling, confidentiality requirements, and the use of information collected during these discussions. Its core practical function is to ensure that structured and effective group discussions can be held, providing valuable qualitative data while protecting participant privacy and clarifying expectations for all parties involved.
Focus Group Discussions. FGDs were conducted at the three health facilities selected in Senegal’s action plan (two hospitals and one health center); three in Guinea (three health centers); five in Togo (two hospitals, two health centers, and the Association Togolaise pour le Bien-Être Familial (ATBEF) clinic); and four in Burkina Faso (one university teaching hospital and three health centers). A total of 90 service providers participated in the FGDs: Senegal (15), Guinea (18), Togo (27), and Burkina Faso (30) (Table 3). Guinea 3 3 18 Togo 4 4 27 Burkina Faso 4 4 30 FGDs were conducted with all cadres of service providers in maternity and PAC units at each of the health facilities selected by the country teams for implementation of the action plans. These included OB/GYNs, medical officers, nurses, midwives, auxiliary nurses, and maternity assistants who were providing PAC, FP, and maternity services before, during, and after implementation of the action plans. Attempts were made to recruit at least two health care providers with the same designation to enable good representation of the different health care provider cadres that provided the PAC-FP services. Each FGD was convened at a venue where there was unlikely to be interruption or excessive noise interference and was convenient to participants. Each discussion lasted between an hour and a half and two hours, and consisted of six to ten participants of various cadres. Discussions commenced with introductions and clarifications about the purpose and procedures of the focus group. Participants were briefed on the need for confidentiality and were asked to participate through an informed consent process which outlined the investigators’ commitment to confidentiality. E2A’s regional consultant facilitated the FGDs. Prior to the FGDs, each participant was requested to complete an FGD attendance form to provide his or her name, professional designation, and length of time he or she had been providing PAC and/or FP services at the facility. Participants were assured of confidentiality, right to withdraw from the FGD, and to decline to respond to any questions. Identification numbers were allocated to each participant, which were matched with the names/designations on the FGD participant attendance form for reference during data analysis. Each FGD was facilitated with a guide that contained questions on a range of topics related to their role in the implementation of FP services and counseling including completing the PAC registers, ...
Focus Group Discussions. FGDs aimed to gain detail about the concerns noted in ▇▇▇▇. They were held in four different communities (two intervention and two control) once ▇▇▇▇ were complete. Two were held per community, one with unmarried women and one with women married for any time period as we could not get enough participants to hold one per life stage. RAs called contacts in communities to recruit potential participants, met women at a private community location, and gathered demographic information one-on-one from participants prior to commencing the FGD collectively. During the FGDs, women were asked to discuss concerns related to urination, defecation and menstruation; were probed about night, monsoon, pregnancy, and dependents; and were asked to discuss noted concerns in detail as a group. We specifically asked about concerns that were mentioned in the ▇▇▇▇ if not mentioned organically during the FGDs. The RAs conducted FGDs in Oriya, one facilitating and the other taking notes. ▇▇▇▇ and FGDs were digitally recorded and translated directly into English. RAs listed out all concerns noted during the FLI and then listened to full recordings to verify initial lists. The list items were collated by the primary author (BC) and used as a preliminary codebook. BC then read all transcripts, applied those list-based codes and created others as needed using MAXQDA analytic software. BC then independently created lists for each participant and compared them to originals created by the RAs for consistency. Frequencies of concerns by participant strata and toilet ownership were then generated. We applied thematic analysis to understand concerns expressed by participants in ▇▇▇▇ and FGDs. It uses a range of tools to examine themes, present the voiced experiences of participants, and build conceptual models[28]. For each concern, we aggregated coded text into summative tables to review collectively and memo. Tables were then sorted by participant type to identify variation by strata and further memos were created to inform results reported[28].
Focus Group Discussions. FGD tools were developed subsequent to the findings from the free-list interviews. The FGDs were conducted to gather greater detail about women’s concerns and determine if the concerns were normative within the community. A total of eight FGDs were held throughout four communities: four with UMW and four with ever-married women (RMW, MW, OW). The topic of concerns regarding menstruation was discussed for one to two hours. FDGs took place in private spaces, such as schools, temples, or houses.
Focus Group Discussions. Focus group discussions followed a semi-structured discussion guide, that include an activity, to investigate beneficiary mothers’ cultural norms, attitudes, practices, or reactions as a group to infant and young child feeding practices (Appendix C) [73]. Topics covered in these discussions were identical to the content covered in that of IDIs, with an increased emphasis on community perceptions. Five focus group discussions were recorded and conducted with mother beneficiaries. FGDs were facilitated in Chichewa by a trained interviewer. The primary investigator was present at all FGDs, and took notes on participants’ contributions, and discussion dynamics. Given the homogeneity of the group composition and the level of familiarity with the topic, only five focus groups were completed due to the fact that this study did not stratify by any variable. Each group contained seven to ten women per focus group. This number of participants was used since the range of seven to ten participants has been shown to stimulate good but manageable discussion [75].
Focus Group Discussions. Focus group participants highlighted the fact that things like reproductive anatomy and condom were rarely discussed in El Salvador in the past. In fact, condoms were not available on the shelves in pharmacies or supermarkets, and people would have to speak privately with clerks to ask if they had condoms available for purchase.
Focus Group Discussions. Two focus group discussions were conducted with program participants in order to gather information on participant insights on the program including perceived satisfaction, strengths and weaknesses, and gaps in content with the intention to inform future recommendations for the program. Focus groups were chosen for their ability to generate discussion and to highlight common experiences and differences in opinion among group members. The first focus group discussion was conducted prior to piloting the new curriculum materials (n=10), with the second taking place at the close of the three-week curriculum workshop (n=9). Focus group participants were drawn directly from the Mothers for the Future support group. The first focus group discussion consisted of ten members of the “core group,” or those who had participated in the 2014 pilot phase (Cohort 1). These participants were purposively selected by the Mother for the Future Program Coordinator, Ms. Dudu Dlamini. Participants for the second focus group discussion were selected from among those participating in the curriculum workshop. Women from both Cohorts 1 and 2 were included to elicit a range of experiences. Program participants who had missed no more than two workshop sessions volunteered to participate in this discussion. Volunteers were recruited during the final workshop session. Volunteers who were absent the morning of the focus group discussion were replaced through a second round of recruitment from among workshop participants present on SWEAT premises for that morning’s Creative Space. One participant who was asked to participate refused. One other was excluded after a very late arrival, though two participants arriving after the start of the discussion were allowed to participate. In total, nine mothers participated in the final focus group discussion. One member of the group was pulled out by SWEAT staff during the session due to another obligation, and was unable to complete the second half of the discussion. I moderated both focus group discussions using a semi-structured discussion guide. Focus groups ran just over one hour each. Recordings, which I later transcribed, were produced using an audio recording device. Note takers (▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ on FGD 1 and Mr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ on FGD 2) sat in to capture additional information to supplement audio recordings. Focus groups were conducted primarily in English, however portions of the discussion took place in Xhosa and were translated in real ...
Focus Group Discussions. It was apparent throughout the FGDs that past CAA participants valued their experience in the program. Given the machismo aspect of the Salvadoran culture, many of the women emphasized how important it was to be educated on these issues in order to promote discussion about HPV and cervical cancer prevention in their communities.
Focus Group Discussions. For the FGDs, men and women who were not selected for the CIs were separated by gender into 8 different groups. Two FGDs consisting of women 16 to 45 years and ranging in size from 5 to 7 people were used for this analysis. The interview guide used for the individuals in the second set of CIs was used for the FGDs. The main purpose of the FGDs was to determine whether people were more likely to oppose IPV when in a group setting. For this analysis, two FGDs were used to triangulate the findings of the CIs.
Focus Group Discussions. During the focus groups, numerous participants reported that both men and women were at risk for HPV. One individual emphasized that people living in rural areas had an even higher risk for HPV infection and cervical cancer due to the limited information available in those places. Despite this consensus, however, one woman suggested that some people believe if they feel fine, they are not at risk for the disease.
Focus Group Discussions. Persons with disabilities would be interviewed using focus groups discussions (FGDs). Fifteen FGDs with 6 respondents in each (total 90 respondents) are to be interviews. However, if at any point during the research the Client or Consultant determines that IDIs would yield more comprehensive findings than FGDs, an FGD will be replaced at a rate of 3 IDIs for 1 FGD, upon mutual agreement from the Client and Consultant. The Client has specified its requirements for each protocol for the following parameters; location, the type of disability, socio-economic category, the use of ICTs, and employment status. 1 Yangon Hearing A/B 5 1 3 2 2 Mobility A/B 5 1 3 2 3 Visual A/B 5 1 3 2 4 Hearing C/D/E 4 2 2 2 5 Visual C/D/E 4 2 2 2 6 Ayeyarwady Visual C 4 2 2 2 7 Hearing D/E 3 3 2 2 8 Mobility D/E 3 3 2 2 9 Visual D/E 3 3 2 2 10 Tanintharyi/ Mandalay Visual A/B 5 1 3 2 11 Hearing C 4 2 2 2 12 Mobility C 4 2 2 2 13 Shan/Chin Hearing C 4 2 2 2 14 Mobility D/E 3 3 2 2 15 Visual D/E 3 3 2 2 For all those with visual impairments, please note that at least one respondent who is employed should be in a vocation other than being a blind masseuse. In addition to the requirements listed above, gender, age, severity of impairment, smartphone ownership and use of assistive technologies, are also to be considered when recruiting respondents. The following quotas are to be adhered to: Table 2: Quotas for recruitment of respondents Gender Male Minimum 40% of sample Female Minimum 40% of sample Age 15-20 Maximum 10% of sample, minimum 5% of sample 20-35 Minimum 20% of sample 35-45 Minimum 20% of sample 45-65 Minimum 20% of sample 65 and above Maximum 10% of sample, minimum 5% of sample Severity of impairment/level of difficulty in carrying out the task specific to the impairment (eg: level of difficulty seeing if visually impaired) Some difficulty Minimum 20% of sample Lot of difficulty Minimum 20% of sample Cannot do at all Minimum 20% of sample Smartphone ownership Minimum of 60% of mobile owners should be smartphone owners. Use of assistive technologies Minimum 20% of sample 3.2.2. In depth interviews (IDIs) Twelve (12) IDIs should be conducted with persons with disabilities who have not left their homes in the three months preceding the interview. IDIs should be conducted in a minimum of three of the four states being sampled. Three IDIs should be carried out focusing on each type of disability specified in Section 3.1 (visual, hearing and mobility). A minimum of 40% of the resp...