↓ Skip to main content

Methodological challenges in the use of focus groups with people with severe mental illness

Overview of attention for article published in Cadernos de Saúde Pública, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Methodological challenges in the use of focus groups with people with severe mental illness
Published in
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, July 2017
DOI 10.1590/0102-311x00187316
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosana Teresa Onocko-Campos, Alberto Rodolfo Giovanello Díaz, Catarina Magalhães Dahl, Erotildes Maria Leal, Octavio Domont de Serpa

Abstract

This study addresses the practical, methodological and ethical challenges that were found in three studies that used focus groups with people with severe mental illness, in the context of community mental health services in Brazil. Focus groups are a powerful tool in health research that need to be better discussed in research with people with severe mental illness, in the context of community mental health facilities. This study is based on the authors' experience of conducting and analyzing focus groups in three different cities - Campinas, Rio de Janeiro and Salvador - between 2006-2010. The implementation of focus groups with people with severe mental illness is discussed in the following categories; planning, group design, sampling, recruitment, group interview guides, and conduction. The importance of connecting mental healthcare providers as part of the research context is emphasized. Ethical issues and challenges are highlighted, as well as the establishment of a sensitive and empathic group atmosphere, wherein mutual respect can facilitate interpersonal relations and enable people diagnosed with severe mental illness to make sense of the experience. We emphasize the relevance of the interaction between clinical and research teams in order to create collaborative work, achieve inquiry aims, and elicit narratives of mental health users and professionals.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Unknown 11 73%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 1 7%
Psychology 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Unknown 12 80%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#1,564
of 1,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,345
of 324,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#42
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,854 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.