Using focus groups for empowerment purposes in qualitative health research and evaluation

被引:8
|
作者
Hall, Jori N. [1 ]
Mitchel, Nia [1 ]
Halpin, Sean N. [2 ]
Kilanko, Glory A. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Georgia, Dept Lifelong Educ Adm & Policy, 305 Rivers Crossing,850 Coll Stn Rd, Athens, GA 30602 USA
[2] Patient Ctr Res, Evidera, Decatur, GA USA
[3] Women Watch Afrika Inc, Avondale Estates, GA USA
关键词
Culture; empowerment; vulnerable populations; qualitative research; evaluation; COMMUNITY; PERSPECTIVES; EXPERIENCES; HIV/AIDS; ISSUES; POWER;
D O I
10.1080/13645579.2022.2049518
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
Researchers and evaluators increasingly use focus groups as a culturally responsive (CR) method to facilitate empowerment - especially among vulnerable groups. Yet, the expansion of this practice muddles the concept of empowerment and purposes for using focus groups for empowerment. Of particular need is a clear differentiation of the purposes for participant empowerment. In this article, we consider prevalent conceptualizations of empowerment and the CR practices used to support empowerment. Next, we clarify the purposes for using focus groups for participant empowerment. For this, we used the health field as a context and analyzed focus group studies. As a result, we identified three empowerment purposes - knowledge-exploration, action-oriented outcomes, community capacity-building - and the CR practices used to facilitate them. Last, we use an example to offer practice-oriented understandings of the three empowerment purposes. This article is important to guide CR focus group empowerment efforts.
引用
收藏
页码:409 / 423
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Incorporating cancer risk information into general practice: a qualitative study using focus groups with health professionals
    Hippisley-Cox, Julia
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2017, 67 (657): : 158 - 158
  • [42] Incorporating cancer risk information into general practice: a qualitative study using focus groups with health professionals
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    Silarova, Barbora
    Ward, Alison
    Youell, Jane
    Muir, Kenneth R.
    Campbell, Jackie
    Warcaba, Joanne
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2017, 67 (656): : E218 - E226
  • [43] USING THE HEALTH BELIEF MODEL IN QUALITATIVE FOCUS GROUPS TO IDENTIFY HPV VACCINE ACCEPTABILITY IN COLLEGE MEN
    Mehta, Purvi
    Sharma, Manoj
    Lee, Rebecca C.
    INTERNATIONAL QUARTERLY OF COMMUNITY HEALTH EDUCATION, 2013, 33 (02) : 175 - 187
  • [44] Risk-adequate motor underwriting of automated vehicles: a qualitative evaluation using German focus groups
    David-Spickermann F.
    Mullins M.
    Murphy F.
    Environment Systems and Decisions, 2021, 41 (2) : 189 - 197
  • [45] QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, APPROPRIATION OF THE OTHER AND EMPOWERMENT
    OPIE, A
    FEMINIST REVIEW, 1992, (40) : 52 - 69
  • [46] Qualitative research in health care - Using qualitative methods in health related action research
    Meyer, J
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7228): : 178 - 181
  • [47] WARRANTING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH - PROBLEMS AND PURPOSES
    SHOTTER, J
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1987, 57 : 128 - 128
  • [48] Telephone focus groups: An emerging method in public health research
    Cooper, CP
    Jorgensen, CM
    Merritt, TL
    JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH, 2003, 12 (10) : 945 - 951
  • [49] ANONYMIZED FOCUS GROUPS AS A RESEARCH TOOL FOR HEALTH-PROFESSIONALS
    WHITE, GE
    THOMSON, AN
    QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 1995, 5 (02) : 256 - 261
  • [50] QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY DIGITAL HEALTH TERMS ARE THEY SUFFICIENT FOR HEALTH OUTCOMES RESEARCH PURPOSES?
    Zrubka, Z.
    Champion, A.
    Holtorf, A. P.
    Di Bidino, R.
    Earla, J. R.
    Boltyenkov, A.
    Tabata-Kelly, M.
    Asche, C.
    Burrell, A.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2022, 25 (12) : S382 - S382