Focus Group Discussion

A focus group is a qualitative research method. A trained moderator guides a small group of participants who share relevant characteristics or experiences through a discussion. The researcher uses the conversation, and the dynamics of the group, to gain insight into what people think and why.

Rationale and Origins of Focus Groups

Focus groups allow researchers to gather perspectives from multiple people at once in an interactive group setting. This group dynamic surfaces richer responses as participants build on each other’s comments, discuss issues in-depth, and voice agreements or disagreements.

It is important that participants feel comfortable expressing diverse viewpoints rather than being pressured into a consensus.

Group Interaction as Data

A focus group is not several one-to-one interviews run at once. The researcher uses the interaction between participants as a source of data. Comments, disagreements and shared stories all become evidence.

Jenny Kitzinger’s (1994) analysis remains the standard statement of this argument.

Several mechanisms explain why group interaction yields richer data than one-to-one interviews:

• Synergy: One comment triggers another person’s memory or reaction, so the group recalls and elaborates more than separate interviews would.
• Visible norms: People respond to peers rather than a researcher, which exposes group norms and taken-for-granted assumptions.
• Co-construction: Participants build meaning together in real time (Wilkinson, 1998). This shifts some control from researcher to participants.
• Comfort in numbers: Among peers, some people find candid talk easier than facing an interviewer alone.

A group where the moderator questions each person in turn has failed on its own terms.

Origins of the Focus Group

The focus group descends from the focused interview, a procedure set out by the sociologists Robert Merton and Patricia Kendall (1946). The word focused comes from this origin.

It grew out of wartime work at Columbia University’s Office of Radio Research. The Office studied how audiences responded to morale-boosting films and radio broadcasts.

Merton later summarized the approach in a manual with Fiske and Kendall (Merton, Fiske, & Kendall, 1956). He remained uneasy about the commercial focus group the technique became.

Even so, his four criteria still underpin good practice:

• Range: covering the relevant ground.
• Specificity: eliciting concrete detail about specific parts of the stimulus.
• Depth: drawing out emotional and evaluative reactions, not just surface opinions.
• Personal context: locating responses in the participant’s own frame of reference.

Market researchers adopted the group version in the 1940s and 1950s. They used it to test advertising, packaging and product ideas by watching a handful of consumers discuss them.

For some decades the method belonged more to marketing than to academic social science.

Academic interest returned from the late 1980s. David Morgan and Richard Krueger wrote practical texts that re-established the focus group as a rigorous qualitative method (Morgan, 1988; Krueger & Casey, 2009).

Its use in health and nursing research also restored its standing. There it let patients and service users speak in their own words (Kitzinger, 1995; Powell, Single, & Lloyd, 1996).

Step 1: Clarify the Focus Group’s Purpose and Orientation

Clarify the purpose and orientation of the focus group (Tracy, 2013). Carefully consider whether a focus group or individual interviews will provide the type of qualitative data needed to address your research questions.

Decide whether the fast-paced, interactive format fits your aim: gathering a range of perspectives rather than in-depth attitudes on a topic.

Consider special techniques to sharpen the focus.

• Extended focus groups: add a pre-survey before the discussion.
• Touchstones: use creative imagery or metaphors to focus the topic.
• Bracketing: set aside your own assumptions through ongoing conceptual inspection (bracketing in qualitative research).

For example

A touchstone in a focus group refers to using a shared experience, activity, metaphor, or other creative technique to provide a common reference point and orientation for grounding the discussion.

Mulvale et al. (2021) centered their focus groups on touchpoints, the key moments in each group’s experience of mental health services. The project was an experience-based co-design study. It brought together transitional-aged youth, caregivers and providers to improve the move from child to adult services.

• Participants: The project involved 12 transitional-aged youth, 8 caregivers and 10 providers.
• Focus: Each group discussed touchpoints in its own experience before the groups worked together.
• Outcome: Discussing touchpoints let members acknowledge the past and express emotional pain.

The staged design let each group work through its own perspective first.

Focus Groups vs Interviews and Surveys

The right method depends on what the research question needs. This table compares a focus group with a one-to-one interview:

Feature	Focus group	One-to-one interview
Core strength	Shows how views form, clash and change through interaction	Gives each person sustained airtime and privacy
Sensitive topics	Poor fit, because others hear everything said	Better suited, because privacy can be assured
Sessions to reach 90% of themes	About 5 groups	About 16 interviews
Cost per unit of saturation	Higher once recruiting whole groups is counted	Somewhat lower

Saturation and cost figures are from Namey et al. (2016).

Sensible designs often use both.

A focus group maps the range of views. Individual interviews then go deeper on points that need privacy or more airtime (Morgan, 1996).

Surveys answer a different question. A questionnaire shows what proportion of a large sample holds a view. A focus group shows only the range of views in the room, and how they form and change (Kitzinger, 1994).

The two often complement each other.

Researchers use focus groups before a survey to word items in participants’ own language. They use them after a survey to explain a pattern in the results (Powell, Single, & Lloyd, 1996).

Step 2: Select a Homogeneous Grouping Characteristic

Select a homogeneous grouping characteristic (Krueger & Casey, 2009) to recruit participants with a commonality, like shared roles, experiences, or demographics, to enable meaningful discussion.

Several design choices shape who sits in the group:

• Group size: Between 6 and 10 participants allows for adequate mingling (MacIntosh 1993). Fewer risks a thin range of views, and more makes it hard for everyone to contribute.
• Mini-groups: Four to six people suit complex or sensitive topics, where each person needs more airtime.
• Homogeneity: Choose members who share a role, experience or demographic that matters to the topic. Common ground helps them feel comfortable and understand each other’s references.
• Diversity: Balance income, gender, age and cultural factors where you can. A uniform group may simply agree, while too much variation across gender, class or profession can inhibit sharing.
• Separate groups: Run separate groups for categories that might silence one another, such as patients and clinicians.
• Screening: Use screening criteria to qualify relevant participants.

The aim is mutual comfort and relevant shared experience, while still representing a mix of viewpoints on the topic (Morgan 1988).

For example, Mulvale et al. (2021) worked with youth, caregivers and providers as distinct groups. Each group first explored its own perspective. All three then met in a co-design event.

How Many Groups Are Enough?

A single group is rarely enough, because each has its own dynamic. Researchers usually run several groups with different participants. They stop when extra groups add no new themes, a point called thematic saturation.

Later work questions whether any fixed number can apply to every study (see Contemporary Research below).

Step 3: Designate a Moderator

Designate a skilled, neutral moderator (Crowe, 2003; Morgan, 1997). Their expertise in guiding group interaction steers productive dialogue. Consider cultural insider moderators, who understand community norms and so foster sharing.

Define the moderator’s responsibilities:

• Directing the flow of discussion
• Monitoring air time across members
• Capturing observational notes on behaviors and dynamics

Choose whether the moderator also analyzes data or only facilitates the group.

So much rests on the moderator’s skill that they are often described as the method’s key instrument. Poor facilitation is also a main source of bias.

Step 4: Develop a Focus Group Guide

Develop an extensive focus group guide (Krueger & Casey, 2009). It should include:

• Introduction: set a relaxed tone and explain the study rationale.
• Confidentiality: review the procedures that protect participants’ information.
• Introductions: run an activity that lets every participant say who they are.
• Ground rules: reiterate respect, listening and sharing principles, both verbally and in writing.

Group confidentiality agreement

The group context introduces distinct ethical demands around informed consent, participant expectations, confidentiality, and data treatment. Establishing guidelines at the outset helps address relevant issues.

Create a group confidentiality agreement (Berg, 2004). It should specify that all comments stay private, remain anonymous in data analysis, and are not discussed outside the group without permission.

Have members sign it. Berg (2004) recommends a formal signed agreement because it shows a shared commitment to a safe, secure environment for honest sharing.

It cannot guarantee privacy, though. Other participants hear everything said and cannot be bound to secrecy. Be honest with participants that confidentiality cannot be promised (ethical concerns in qualitative research).

Designing the Questions

Develop questions that start general and funnel down to five to ten key questions on critical topics. Integrate think/pair/share activities between question sets to encourage inclusion. Close with a conclusion that summarizes the key ideas voiced without endorsing consensus.

The guide is semi-structured. It covers the same ground in every group, which aids comparison. It also lets the moderator follow unexpected but relevant lines.

Krueger and Casey (2009) recommend structuring focus group questions in five stages:

Opening Questions:

• Start with easy, non-threatening questions to make participants comfortable, often related to their background and experience with the topic.
• Get everyone talking and open up initial dialogue.
• Example: “Let’s go around and have each person share how long you’ve lived in this city.”

Introductory Questions:

• Transition to the key focus group objectives and main topics of interest.
• Remain quite general to provide baseline understanding before drilling down.
• Example: “Thinking broadly, how would you describe the arts and cultural offerings in your community?”

Transition Questions:

• Serve as a logical link between introductory and key questions.
• Funnel participants toward critical topics guided by research aims.
• Example: “Specifically related to concerts and theatre performances, what venues in town have you attended events at over the past year?”

Key Questions:

• Drive at the heart of study goals, and issues under investigation.
• Ask 5-10 questions that foster organic, interactive discussion between participants.
• Example: “What enhances or detracts from the concert-going experience at these various venues?”

Ending Questions:

• Provide an opportunity for final thoughts or anything missed.
• Assess the degree of consensus on key topics.
• Example: “If you could improve just one thing about the concert and theatre options here, what would you prioritize?”

Pilot test the draft questions extensively (pilot study). Piloting hones the wording, flow, timing and tone. It also reveals gaps, so the questions adequately cover the research objectives through dynamic group discussion.

Step 5: Prepare the focus group room

Prepare the focus group room with care (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Attend to details like circular seating for eye contact, centralized recording equipment with backup power, name cards and refreshments.

These create a welcoming, affirming environment. Participants then feel valued and comfortable engaging in genuine dialogue as a collective. Snacks and music set a relaxed tone.

Seating

Arrange seating comfortably in a circle to facilitate discussion flow and eye contact among members. Decide if space for breakout conversations or activities like role-playing is needed.

Refreshments

• Coordinate snacks or light refreshments to be available when focus group members arrive, especially for longer sessions. This contributes to a welcoming atmosphere.
• Even if no snacks are provided, consider making bottled water available throughout the session.

Name Tags

• Set out colorful pens and blank name tags for focus group members to write their preferred name or pseudonym when they arrive.
• Attaching name tags to clothing facilitates interaction and expedites learning names.
• If short on preparation time, prepare printed name tags in advance based on RSVPs, but blank name tags enable anonymity if preferred.

Step 6: Conduct the focus group

Conduct the focus group using core moderation skills. Convey empathy, watch verbal and non-verbal cues, gently redirect, and probe overlooked members. Affirm that participants’ knowledge sharing is useful.

Use facilitation principles (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Tracy 2013). Ensure psychological safety, mutual respect and equitable airtime. Elicit an array of perspectives to expand group knowledge. Gain member buy-in through collaborative review.

Record discussions through detailed note-taking, audio/video recording, and seating charts tracking engaged participation.

Recording is essential because no one can capture the overlapping talk of eight people by hand.

An assistant can take field notes on non-verbal reactions. A seating chart then helps attribute speech when several voices sound alike. Sessions typically last 60 to 120 minutes.

The role of moderator

The moderator is critical in facilitating open, interactive discussion in the group. Their main responsibilities are:

• Providing clear explanations of the purpose and helping participants feel comfortable
• Promoting debate by asking open-ended questions
• Drawing out differences of opinion and a range of perspectives by challenging participants
• Probing for more details when needed or moving the conversation forward
• Keeping the discussion focused and on track
• Ensuring all participants get a chance to speak
• Remaining neutral and non-judgmental, without sharing personal opinions

Moderators need strong interpersonal abilities to build participant trust and comfort sharing. The degree of control and input from the moderator depends on the research goals and personal style.

With multiple moderators, roles, and responsibilities should be clear and consistent across groups. Careful preparation is key for effective moderation.

For example, Krueger & Casey (2009) advise moderators to handle displays of distress empathetically. Offer a break and emotional support through active listening instead of ignoring reactions. This upholds ethical principles.

Analyzing Focus Group Data

Analysis starts with verbatim transcription of the recording. Attribute each contribution to a speaker, using the seating chart and any video. Mark overlaps, laughter, pauses and who is responding to whom.

Most studies then apply an established qualitative tradition:

• Thematic analysis: code the transcripts, then group the codes into themes that capture patterns of meaning across groups (thematic analysis).
• Grounded theory: build theory up from the data itself rather than testing a theory against it (grounded theory).
• Conversation or discourse analysis: examine how participants jointly build and contest meaning, when the interaction itself is the focus (conversation analysis).

Good analysis must attend to the interaction and the group context. Simply aggregating individual comments, as if they came from separate interviews, discards the method’s main strength (Kitzinger, 1994; Smithson, 2000).

The unit of analysis is also ambiguous. It could be the individual, the group or the interaction (Smithson, 2000).

Applications of Focus Groups

Focus groups are used across many fields. What a group is convened for differs by discipline.

• Market research and design: Test advertising, packaging, products and early design concepts.
• Health, education and policy: Hear patients, students and communities on their experience and on proposals.
• Sport psychology: Reconstruct athletes’ shared experience and explore their attitudes.

Market Research and Design Testing

Market research is the method’s original commercial home. Companies use focus groups to test advertising concepts, packaging and product prototypes.

Purchase decisions are rarely made in isolation. People compare products and react to others’ objections. They revise a first impression when someone raises a concern they had not considered. A group therefore shows why a concept is liked or disliked, and which objections are shared.

Design teams use groups in a similar way. Focus groups suit early concept and reaction testing. Observing someone perform a task needs an individual think-aloud session instead.

Groups expose disagreement about how a design is understood. One participant finds a layout obvious and another finds it confusing.

A single usability session, run one person at a time, would report that range as one data point rather than a pattern.

Health, Education and Policy Research

Health research is a long-standing home for the method.

Focus groups explore patients’ and service users’ experience of a condition or treatment. They also test whether a proposed intervention would be acceptable and feasible before a larger trial.

Patients can validate, qualify or challenge one another’s accounts of symptoms, side effects or barriers to care. The group shows what is typical and what is unusual. One patient’s account cannot supply that (Kitzinger, 1995; Powell, Single, & Lloyd, 1996).

Education and policy consultation work the same way. Groups show how a curriculum change, service redesign or policy is received collectively.

They also give hard-to-reach or marginalized communities some control over the terms of discussion. That suits communities whose views might otherwise go unheard in a written consultation (Goss & Leinbach, 1996; Wilkinson, 1998).

Sport and Exercise Psychology

Keegan et al. (2009) interviewed 40 children aged 7 to 11, from a range of sports, in semi-structured focus groups.

They explored how coaches, parents and peers shaped the children’s motivation. Coaches’ influence related most strongly to instruction and assessment.

Bloodworth and McNamee (2010) held 12 focus groups with 40 talented young British athletes (mean age 19.6, from 13 sports) about doping.

Athletes often called doping unnatural. Many saw the shame attached to it as a significant deterrent. A significant minority, though, entertained taking a banned drug under guaranteed success and undetectability.

Both studies show the group format at work in sport. Children compared coaching experiences, and athletes discussed doping in front of peers. In each case the interaction itself helped bring shared experience and social norms to the surface.

Advantages and disadvantages of focus groups

Focus groups efficiently provide interactive qualitative data that can yield useful insights into emerging themes. However, findings may be skewed by group behaviors and still require larger sample validation through added research methods. Careful planning is vital.

Advantages

Most advantages flow from the group format and the interaction it enables.

• Rich data: Members build on, question and react to one another, giving complex responses in their own words.
• Efficiency: Researchers gather a range of perspectives in a short time.
• Observable dynamics: Researchers can watch consensus, disagreement and the negotiation of views as they happen.
• Flexibility: Moderators can probe unanticipated insights, which suits exploratory research and under-researched topics.
• Comfort in a group: Many people feel more comfortable sharing as part of a group than one-to-one.
• Recall: Listening to others tell their stories helps participants remember and reflect.
• Participant-led: Participants steer the conversation and use their own words, which suits research with hard-to-reach communities (Goss & Leinbach, 1996).
• Accessibility: No literacy is required, unlike a written questionnaire.

Disadvantages

The features that give focus groups their strengths also create their weaknesses.

• Small samples: Groups are small and purposive, so findings are difficult to generalize statistically.
• Groupthink: Influential members may discourage dissenting views, so the group converges on a dominant opinion (Kitzinger, 1994; Smithson, 2000).
• Social desirability bias: Participants may be reluctant to oppose a perceived majority and may say what they think the group approves of.
• Dominant voices: A domineering or high-status member can monopolize airtime and shape the apparent group view.
• Moderator effects: A poor moderator may let dominant members run, ask leading questions or signal approval. Groups need highly skilled moderators.
• Sensitive topics: Personal, stigmatized or confidential subjects are poorly suited to a group, where others’ presence can inhibit honest disclosure.
• Confidentiality: It is harder to ensure than in individual interviews, because other participants hear everything said.
• Messy analysis: Overlapping talk is hard to transcribe, and group dynamics add layers of complexity beyond the content of responses.
• Logistics: Recruiting and scheduling whole groups is demanding, and no-shows can leave a group too small to function.

Interaction is both the method’s central strength and its central weakness. That is why skilled moderation and interaction-aware analysis are conditions of the method working at all.

Focus groups suit exploratory, meaning-focused research. When a question demands confidentiality, representativeness or numbers, complement them with individual interviews, observation or surveys.

Contemporary Research

Since Morgan’s (1996) review, research has moved in two directions. Methodologists have adapted focus groups to online settings. They have also questioned the evidence used to decide how many groups to run.

Online and Virtual Focus Groups

Pandemic-era restrictions made videoconferencing common. Lobe, Morgan and Hoffman (2020) reviewed video platforms against criteria such as data security, participants’ technical access and the ethics of moving a discussion online. They concluded that platform, consent and security choices are deliberate design decisions, not an afterthought.

A later systematic review asked whether online groups yield worse data.

Two further studies extend the question. Dedios-Sanguineti et al. (2025) coded 12 focus groups run on WhatsApp with hard-to-reach, highly mobile participants in Colombia. Complex interaction can emerge in asynchronous text groups. Even so, a high volume of messages did not mean richer data.

Gehrmann et al. (2026) re-analyzed nine digital focus-group sessions within a hybrid prevention intervention. Pre-existing cohort cohesion and unequal digital access shaped participation. The platform and the group’s prior relationships co-produced the data.

Wang et al. (2025) tested AI-generated summaries of virtual groups. Participants accepted them with or without human oversight, as long as the use of AI was disclosed.

Is Saturation a Useful Stopping Rule?

Braun and Clarke (2021) critiqued data saturation as a stopping criterion. They argued it fits structured, codebook-driven analysis. It suits reflexive thematic analysis poorly, because themes are built through interpretation, not counted. They also noted that saturation figures from one narrow population are often over-generalized.

Newer evidence complicates the picture further. Matimbwa, Nyatega and Tibesigwa (2026) reviewed 18 qualitative-methodology studies published between 2012 and 2024. Saturation depended on sample size, participant heterogeneity, design complexity, data-collection method and researcher experience together, not on group number alone.

So there is no single portable answer.

For how many groups are enough, treat any fixed number as a planning guide, not a rule (data saturation in thematic analysis).

Sources

Bloodworth, A., & McNamee, M. (2010). Clean Olympians? Doping and anti-doping: The views of talented young British athletes. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(4), 276-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.11.009

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846

Chai, C. A., Barrios, M., Gómez-Benito, J., Berrío, A. I., & Guilera, G. (2024). Information retrieval in face-to-face and online focus groups: A systematic review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241286856

Dedios-Sanguineti, M. C., Guarin, A., Torres-García, A., & Martínez Gómez, M. (2025). Assessing meaningful interaction in focus group discussions conducted over WhatsApp. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251321599

Gehrmann, J., Stephan, J., Stullich, A., Roick, J., Hoffmann, L., & Richter, M. (2026). Digital focus groups in healthcare interventions: A reflexive methodological analysis of how socio-technical and relational factors co-produce qualitative data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 26, Article 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-02945-7

Goss, J. D., & Leinbach, T. R. (1996). Focus groups as alternative research practice: Experience with transmigrants in Indonesia. Area, 28(2), 115-123.

Guest, G., Namey, E., & McKenna, K. (2017). How many focus groups are enough? Building an evidence base for nonprobability sample sizes. Field Methods, 29(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X16639015

Keegan, R. J., Harwood, C. G., Spray, C. M., & Lavallee, D. (2009). A qualitative investigation exploring the motivational climate in early career sports participants: Coach, parent and peer influences on sport motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(3), 361-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.12.003

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103-121.

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299-302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Sage.

Lobe, B., Morgan, D., & Hoffman, K. A. (2020). Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920937875

Matimbwa, H. M., Nyatega, C. O., & Tibesigwa, B. M. (2026). Determinants of qualitative data saturation: A meta-analytical review. SN Social Sciences, 6(4), Article 116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-026-01393-w

Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. (1956). The focused interview: A manual of problems and procedures. Free Press.

Merton, R. K., & Kendall, P. L. (1946). The focused interview. American Journal of Sociology, 51(6), 541-557. https://doi.org/10.1086/219886

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 129-152. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129

Mulvale, G., Green, J., Miatello, A., Cassidy, A. E., & Martens, T. (2021). Finding harmony within dissonance: engaging patients, family/caregivers and service providers in research to fundamentally restructure relationships through integrative dynamics. Health Expectations, 24(S1), 147-160.

Namey, E., Guest, G., McKenna, K., & Chen, M. (2016). Evaluating bang for the buck: A cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus groups based on thematic saturation levels. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(3), 425-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016630406

Powell, R. A., Single, H. M., & Lloyd, K. R. (1996). Focus groups in mental health research: enhancing the validity of user and provider questionnaires. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 42(3), 193-206.

Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice. Sage.

Redmond, R. A., & Curtis, E. A. (2009). Focus groups: principles and process. Nurse researcher, 16(3).

Smith, J. A., Scammon, D. L., & Beck, S. L. (1995). Using patient focus groups for new patient services. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 21(1), 22-31.

Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(2), 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/136455700405172

Smithson, J. (2008). Focus groups. The Sage handbook of social research methods, 357-370.

Wang, Y., Chen, H., Wei, X., Chang, C., & Zuo, X. (2025). Trusting the machine: Exploring participant perceptions of AI-driven summaries in virtual focus groups with and without human oversight. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 6, Article 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100198

White, G. E., & Thomson, A. N. (1995). Anonymized focus groups as a research tool for health professionals. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 256-261.

Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus groups in feminist research: Power, interaction, and the co-construction of meaning. Women’s Studies International Forum, 21(1), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(97)00080-0

Download PDF slides of the presentation ‘Conducting Focus Groups – A Brief Overview‘