探讨儿童健康行为的焦点小组或个人访谈:以身体活动为例

K. Woolley, K. Edwards, C. Glazebrook
{"title":"探讨儿童健康行为的焦点小组或个人访谈:以身体活动为例","authors":"K. Woolley, K. Edwards, C. Glazebrook","doi":"10.24105/apr.2018.5.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Children's health behaviours affect their current and future health. An appreciation of children’s perceptions regarding these behaviours can inform health promotion initiatives. Focus groups and individual interviews have increasingly been used to explore health-related issues with children although the rationale for choosing any one method is not often explained and despite considerable debate about their benefits and drawbacks these methods have rarely been compared directly. This study aimed to explore the relative merits of the two approaches when collecting information from children about their perceptions of physical activity. Methods: Twelve children from Year 6 classes at one UK primary school were randomly allocated to an 'interview group' or a 'focus group' and asked questions about facilitators and barriers relating to their physical activity at school. Focus group interactions and interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analysed using exploratory thematic analysis and subsequently content analysis was undertaken to quantify differences between the groups. Results: Although both methods were suitable for collecting information from children about physical activity, children who were interviewed spoke on more occasions and offered more information about facilitators for physical activity. They also spoke more frequently about potentially important aspects of the school outdoor environment with regard to physical activity promotion. The focus group was more time efficient in this setting. Conclusion: Qualitative methods for exploring health behaviours may not be equivalent and need to be chosen carefully depending on the specific research problem and practical constraints within a project.","PeriodicalId":72104,"journal":{"name":"Advances in pediatric research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Focus group or individual interviews for exploring children's health behaviour: the example of physical activity\",\"authors\":\"K. Woolley, K. Edwards, C. Glazebrook\",\"doi\":\"10.24105/apr.2018.5.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Children's health behaviours affect their current and future health. An appreciation of children’s perceptions regarding these behaviours can inform health promotion initiatives. Focus groups and individual interviews have increasingly been used to explore health-related issues with children although the rationale for choosing any one method is not often explained and despite considerable debate about their benefits and drawbacks these methods have rarely been compared directly. This study aimed to explore the relative merits of the two approaches when collecting information from children about their perceptions of physical activity. Methods: Twelve children from Year 6 classes at one UK primary school were randomly allocated to an 'interview group' or a 'focus group' and asked questions about facilitators and barriers relating to their physical activity at school. Focus group interactions and interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analysed using exploratory thematic analysis and subsequently content analysis was undertaken to quantify differences between the groups. Results: Although both methods were suitable for collecting information from children about physical activity, children who were interviewed spoke on more occasions and offered more information about facilitators for physical activity. They also spoke more frequently about potentially important aspects of the school outdoor environment with regard to physical activity promotion. The focus group was more time efficient in this setting. Conclusion: Qualitative methods for exploring health behaviours may not be equivalent and need to be chosen carefully depending on the specific research problem and practical constraints within a project.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in pediatric research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in pediatric research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24105/apr.2018.5.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in pediatric research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24105/apr.2018.5.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

背景:儿童的健康行为影响其当前和未来的健康。了解儿童对这些行为的看法可以为促进健康的举措提供信息。焦点小组和个人访谈越来越多地用于探讨与儿童有关的健康问题,尽管通常不解释选择任何一种方法的理由,尽管对这些方法的利弊进行了大量辩论,但很少对这些方法进行直接比较。本研究旨在探讨两种方法在收集儿童对体育活动的看法时的相对优点。方法:来自英国一所小学六年级的12名儿童被随机分配到“访谈组”或“焦点组”,并被问及有关他们在学校体育活动的促进因素和障碍的问题。焦点小组的互动和访谈被逐字记录和转录。使用探索性专题分析对定性数据进行分析,随后进行内容分析以量化各组之间的差异。结果:虽然两种方法都适用于儿童体育活动信息的收集,但被调查儿童在更多场合发言,提供更多关于体育活动促进者的信息。他们还更频繁地谈到学校户外环境在促进体育活动方面的潜在重要方面。在这种情况下,焦点小组的时间效率更高。结论:探索健康行为的定性方法可能并不等同,需要根据具体的研究问题和项目中的实际限制因素仔细选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Focus group or individual interviews for exploring children's health behaviour: the example of physical activity
Background: Children's health behaviours affect their current and future health. An appreciation of children’s perceptions regarding these behaviours can inform health promotion initiatives. Focus groups and individual interviews have increasingly been used to explore health-related issues with children although the rationale for choosing any one method is not often explained and despite considerable debate about their benefits and drawbacks these methods have rarely been compared directly. This study aimed to explore the relative merits of the two approaches when collecting information from children about their perceptions of physical activity. Methods: Twelve children from Year 6 classes at one UK primary school were randomly allocated to an 'interview group' or a 'focus group' and asked questions about facilitators and barriers relating to their physical activity at school. Focus group interactions and interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analysed using exploratory thematic analysis and subsequently content analysis was undertaken to quantify differences between the groups. Results: Although both methods were suitable for collecting information from children about physical activity, children who were interviewed spoke on more occasions and offered more information about facilitators for physical activity. They also spoke more frequently about potentially important aspects of the school outdoor environment with regard to physical activity promotion. The focus group was more time efficient in this setting. Conclusion: Qualitative methods for exploring health behaviours may not be equivalent and need to be chosen carefully depending on the specific research problem and practical constraints within a project.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Washington and Alaska statewide fetal alcohol spectrum disorder diagnostic clinical networks: Comparison of three decades of 4-Digit Code diagnostic outcomes and prenatal alcohol exposure histories. Hereditary Syndromes Associated with Intellectual Disability Neonatal Restraint Condition: The Executives and Current Ideas Streamlining Nutrition of Preterm and Term Infants Oxygen Therapy in Preterm Infants: Recommendations for Practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1