| Title |
What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-26 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benedicte Carlsen, Claire Glenton |
| Abstract |
Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 762 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 745 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 156 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 124 | 16% |
| Researcher | 87 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 63 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 51 | 7% |
| Other | 131 | 17% |
| Unknown | 150 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 110 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 105 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 93 | 12% |
| Psychology | 89 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 5% |
| Other | 137 | 18% |
| Unknown | 188 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,981,956
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,031
of 2,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,968
of 109,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 109,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.