Search

Primary care plays an important role in promoting sexual health, but in this setting counselling regarding sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is rarely performed and often inadequate.

Background: Focus group discussions are becoming an increasingly popular methodology in primary healthcare research. They can be used to understand people's beliefs, opinions and attitudes about the topic of interest. With the increasing emphasis on critical appraisal of scientific research, it is obvious that reporting qualitative research has to be transparent. Not only should the methodology itself be easy to understand and evaluate, but also the question whether focus group methodology is the most appropriate way to serve the research question should be answered. Focus group discussions are relatively new to biomedical journals, often resulting in misunderstanding and frustration for authors, reviewers and editors.Objectives: To develop a reliable and valid checklist for the critical appraisal of focus group research articles for the information of referees and editors of medical journals, commissioners of research, but most of all to help authors to report transparently.Methods: A review of the literature in different databases from 1990 to 2000 using the keywords “qualitative research”, “focus groups”, “methodology” and “standards” resulted in a checklist being issued. This checklist was submitted to an expert panel, its feasibility was addressed and the inter-rater agreement was assessed by members of the European General Practice Research Workshop.Results: A critical appraisal checklist for focus group research articles.Conclusions: The checklist does not replace training in the research method but it can act as a tool for authors, reviewers, editors and commissioners of research.