A Comparison of Online and In-Person Focus Groups and Their Implications for Health Communications Research

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis:  Two-thirds of Americans have access to high-speed Internet connections at home (Pew, 2012). The development of user-friendly online data collection tools has made it possible to conduct health communications research with a broader geographic audience, with quicker turnaround and at lower cost. Technological advances in online focus groups, such as the inclusion of web cameras, allow for conversational interaction with participants and address many of the methodological criticisms levied on synchronous chat-based online groups, such as the ability to observe non-verbal cues and interaction between respondent (Hughes and Lang, 2004). Interactive tools available in online focus group software allow researchers to simulate in-person environments during materials testing research. CDC’s National Influenza Vaccination campaign involves campaign messages and information communicated through various communication channels to reach general and target audiences. The flu campaign target audiences include ethnic/minority populations, parents of young children, pregnant women, people with chronic medical conditions, older adults, and health care providers. For years, flu vaccines have been trivalent, or designed to protect against three different flu viruses. As of February 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved two quadrivalent flu vaccines for the U.S. market. Quadrivalent flu vaccines are designed to protect people against four different flu viruses. With quadrivalent influenza vaccine entering the market for the 2013-2014 season, CDC developed messages to inform audiences about the types of quadrivalent vaccines and their availability. This paper discusses research implications from online and in-person focus testing methods used to test quadrivalent vaccine education messages among three target campaign audiences: parents of children 6 months-18 years old, adults 50-64 with chronic disease, and adults 65 years and older.

Methods: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a series of 19 focus groups to test educational messages and a fact sheet about the quadrivalent seasonal flu vaccine. Focus groups were conducted in in-person (6) and online settings (13). Online groups were drawn from a national sample, allowing for greater regional representation of respondents. In-person groups were conducted in Baltimore and Nashville. To select these locations, we examined state level vaccination rates for the 2011-12 season among demographics similar to our target audiences, identifying a set of locations with high vaccination rates and regional diversity.

Results: The paper will discuss the differences between findings gathered through online and in-person qualitative research modes. Findings will address recruitment methods, costs, content of respondent feedback, and differences in focus group participation among the three research audiences. The 19 focus groups are currently being fielded. Results will be available in time for presentation in August. 

Conclusions: While in-person focus groups often offer value in the areas of non-verbal cues and more in-depth dialogue, online groups offer flexibility and cost-efficiency. 

Implications for research and/or practice: With today’s need to be mindful of budgets while still obtaining the best research results, this paper will present implications for the use of online qualitative methods and their implications for budgets in health communications research.