Exploring the Acceptability and Suitability of Synchronous Online Focus Groups for Health Research With Métis Nation of Ontario Citizens: An Internet-Based Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many researchers to adjust research methods from in-person to online formats. This paper explores the acceptability and suitability of synchronous online focus groups used to explore housing and health with Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) citizens, one of 3 constitutionally recognized Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Objective: The objective of this internet-based survey was to understand the experiences of MNO citizens participating in synchronous online focus groups. Methods: Only participants of the "Understanding Housing and Health" project were eligible to complete the survey and were recruited via a 'thank you' email. The survey asked respondents to rate their experience, satisfaction, and preference, as well as the feasibility and cultural appropriateness of the online focus group. An open textbox allowed respondents to share additional thoughts. Demographic and personal information (ie, age, gender, MNO region, and email) were collected. A total of 33/35 eligible participants completed the survey. A content analysis was conducted to generate themes from the open textbox responses and used to triangulate the results. The survey was developed collaboratively with MNO staff. Results: Most respondents identified as women and were 45-65 years and older. All respondents had used Zoom before, and most (n=28, 85%) were either strongly or somewhat confident in their ability to use Zoom. One hundred percent of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed that they would participate in an online focus group in the future, and 86% of respondents strongly (n=22, 67%) or somewhat (n=7, 21%) agreed that an online focus group was culturally appropriate for Métis health research. A total of 82% (n=27) of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed that an online focus group was more feasible. Moreover, 58% (n=19) of respondents strongly or somewhat disagreed that they would have preferred to participate in an in-person focus group, while 27% (n=9) were neutral. Around 58% (n=19) of respondents could see other participants all of the time and did not experience lag at any point, while 25 (76%) could hear other participants all of the time, indicating fewer issues with audio. A total of 70% (n=23) of respondents felt they could connect with others all or most of the time, while 30% (n=10) felt they could do this some of the time or rarely. Content analysis of the open textbox responses generated 4 themes: internet and technology issues, accessibility, structure of the group discussion, and positive feedback. Conclusions: The use of online focus groups for research with MNO citizens is acceptable; however, internet and technology issues can affect a participant's ability to fully engage. Considerations around cultural appropriateness and connecting with others should be made. This information will help inform method selection for future research work conducted in collaboration with the MNO.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,043 | 0,069 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».