Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42436430›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026

Digital focus groups in healthcare interventions: A reflexive methodological analysis of how socio-technical and relational factors co-produce qualitative data.

Jan Gehrmann, Johannes Stephan, Ananda Stullich, Julia Roick, Laura Hoffmann, Matthias Richter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jan GehrmannTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Health and Sport Sciences, Social Determinants of Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. Jan.Gehrmann@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5203-016X
Johannes StephanTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Health and Sport Sciences, Social Determinants of Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ananda StullichTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Health and Sport Sciences, Social Determinants of Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Julia RoickTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Health and Sport Sciences, Social Determinants of Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Laura HoffmannTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Health and Sport Sciences, Social Determinants of Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Matthias RichterTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Health and Sport Sciences, Social Determinants of Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital focus groups are increasingly used in health research, yet their methodological implications within complex interventions remain insufficiently examined. When conducted with pre-existing cohorts, digital focus groups may function not only as evaluative tools but also as relational and socio-technical encounters that shape the generation of qualitative data. The goal of the present study was to examine how digital focus groups operate within this context.

methodsThis study presents a methodological re-analysis of focus group material originally collected for the evaluation of a hybrid psychosocial prevention intervention, examining how digital focus groups operate within this context following the perspective of Situational Analysis. Digital focus groups were conducted with participants who had completed the hybrid intervention together in fixed cohort groups, meaning participants were already acquainted with one another prior to the focus group sessions. For the analysis, the transcripts were examined using descriptive, inductive coding. Verbatim quotations were used as methodological markers to illustrate how relational, emotional and technological factors shaped the data.

resultsPre-existing cohort cohesion strongly influenced how participants engaged in the digital setting, fostering emotional safety, peer-supported learning, motivational reinforcement and opportunities for self-regulation. Digital platforms structured visibility, turn-taking and synchronization, while differences in devices, connectivity and digital literacy affected participation and the stability of group interaction. The researcher role expanded to include facilitation, technical troubleshooting and emotional anchoring, making the research team part of the socio-technical infrastructure. At times, the focus groups elicited supportive or motivational effects that echoed elements of the intervention itself, blurring the line between evaluation and unintended interventional effects.

conclusionsFocus groups in intervention research operate as relational encounters rather than neutral data-collection tools. This applies particularly to Digital Focus Groups. Recognizing how pre-existing relationships, technological environments and researcher involvement shape interaction is essential for methodological transparency and rigorous interpretation. The findings highlight the importance of reflexivity, attention to digital differences, and awareness of unintended interventional dynamics when designing and interpreting digitally mediated qualitative methods in healthcare contexts. Furthermore, the findings indicate that the choice between digital and in-person FGs should not be guided by pragmatic considerations alone, but by the relational, technological and institutional conditions of the research situation.

trial registrationDRKS-ID: DRKS00033080 (registration date: December 7, 2023).

Indexed as

Focus GroupsDigital HealthDigital MediaFemaleGroup DynamicsHumansQualitative ResearchResearch DesignSocial GroupData CollectionDigital DivideFocus GroupGroup ProcessesQualitative InquiryQualitative ResearchResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID42436430
PMCPMC13356787

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.