Maternity and online focus group: a scope review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18310/2446-4813.2026v12n2.4993Keywords:
Pregnant Women, Focus Groups, Maternity, Qualitative Research, Scoping ReviewAbstract
Objective: This study aimed to map the use of Online Focus Groups (OFG) in studies addressing motherhood-related themes. Method: This is a Scoping Review conducted according to the JBI Institute Reviewers' Manual. The Scielo, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cinahl, Lilacs, and Psycinfo databases were systematically examined in November 2022. The guiding question for the study was: "How are OFGs utilized in studies on motherhood?". Based on this, the selected articles were analyzed in depth, comparing their content and the aspects in which they converged or diverged. Results: A total of 469 texts were identified; after screening titles and abstracts, 45 were read in full, and 18 articles comprised the final selection. The use of OFGs in investigating motherhood-related issues has proven relevant regarding access to information from individuals in different locations due to accessibility conditions. Furthermore, it presents itself as a form of social support to resist dominant understandings and the normalization of motherhood. Conclusion: Mapping the use of OFGs in motherhood studies suggests that this method is promising, offering an opportunity to approach sensitive topics and reach a group of women subjected to the burden of activities intrinsic to motherhood, who at times belong to populations considered vulnerable.
References
1. Trad LAB. Grupos focais: conceitos, procedimentos e reflexões baseadas em experiências com o uso da técnica em pesquisas de saúde. Physis. 2009;19(3):777-96.
2. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 5ª ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014.
3. Silva IS, Veloso AL, Keating JB. Focus group: considerações teóricas e metodológicas. Rev Lusofona Educ. 2014;26:175-90.
4. Woodyatt CR, Finneran CA, Stephenson R. In-person versus online focus group discussions: a comparative analysis of data quality. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(6):741-9.
5. Ybarra ML, DuBois LZ, Parsons JT, Prescott TL, Mustanski B. Online focus groups as an HIV prevention program for gay, bisexual, and queer adolescent males. AIDS Educ Prev. 2014;26(6):554-64.
6. Denscombe M. The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. 4ª ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2003.
7. Williams S, Clausen MG, Robertson A, Peacock S, McPherson K. Methodological reflections on the use of asynchronous online focus groups in health research. Int J Qual Methods. 2012;11(4):368-83.
8. Fontenele GC, Siqueira DD, Rocha FAA, Costa FBC, Branco JGO. Fatores psicossociais enfrentados por grávidas na fase final da adolescência. Rev Bras Promoc Saude. 2018;31(2):1-8.
9. Freitas RPM, Miranda MKV, Souza AC, Zukowsky-Tavares C. Educação em saúde com gestantes e mães sobre noções de cuidado com o neonato. Rev Bras Multidisciplinar. 2018;21(3):120-34.
10. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Scoping reviews. Em: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editores. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Adelaide: JBI; 2020.
11. Scavone L. Maternidade: transformações na família e nas relações de gênero. Interface (Botucatu). 2001;5(8):47-59.
12. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-73.
13. Anderson E, Koss M, Luque ALC, Garcia D, Lopez E, Ernst K. WhatsApp-based focus groups among Mexican-origin women in Zika risk area: feasibility, acceptability, and data quality. JMIR Form Res. 2021;5(10):e20970.
14. De Munter AC, Ruijs WLM, Ruiter RAC, Nimwegen DJJV, Oerlemans AJM, Ginkel RV, et al. Decision-making on maternal pertussis vaccination among women in a vaccine hesitant religious group: stages and needs. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0242261.
15. Harlow AF, Zheng A, Nordberg J, Hatch EE, Ransbotham S, Wise LA. A qualitative study of factors influencing male participation in fertility research. Reprod Health. 2020;17(186):1-14.
16. Hinton L, Dumelow C, Rowe R, Hollowell J. Birthplace choices: what are the information needs of women when choosing where to give birth in England? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18:12.
17. Little A, Sinclair M, Zheng H, Gillen P. Factors that influence online medication purchasing behaviour in pregnancy: a qualitative study. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest. 2020;30(2):159-71.
18. Perdok H, Jans S, Verhoeven C, Henneman L, Wiegers T, Schellevis BWMF, et al. Opinions of maternity care professionals and other stakeholders about integration of maternity care: a qualitative study in the Netherlands. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):1-12.
19. Prabhakar AS, Guerra-Reyes L, Kleinschmidt VM, Jelen B, McLeod H, Connelly K, et al. Investigating the suitability of the asynchronous, remote, community-based method for pregnant and new mothers. Em: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM; 2017. p. 4924-34.
20. Rhodes A, Smith AD, Llewellyn CH, Croker H. Investigating partner involvement in pregnancy and identifying barriers and facilitators to participating as a couple in a digital intervention. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):450.
21. Roberts J, Walsh D. “Babies come when they are ready”: women’s experiences of resisting the medicalisation of prolonged pregnancy. Fem Psychol. 2019;29(1):40-57.
22. Robinson A, Davis M, Hall J, Lauckner C, Anderson AK. It takes an e-village: supporting African American mothers in sustaining breastfeeding through Facebook communities. J Hum Lact. 2019;35(3):569-82.
23. Rodríguez NL, Jereda MEM. Design process of an alternate reality game as a strategy to foster social support and well-being of mothers of children with ASD. Em: IEEE International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health. 2019. p. 1-7.
24. Skelton KR, Evans R, Lachenaye J, Amsbary J. Exploring social media group use among breastfeeding mothers: qualitative analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(2):e11344.
25. Skelton K, Evans R, Lachenaye J, Amsbary J, Wingate M, Talbott L. Utilization of online focus groups to include mothers: a use-case design, reflection, and recommendations. Digit Health. 2018;4:1-6.
26. Skelton K, Evans R, LaChenaye J. Hidden communities of practice in social media groups: mixed methods study. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2020;3:e14355.
27. Tan-MacNeill KM, Smith IM, Jemcov A, Keeler L, Chorney J, Johnson S, et al. Barriers and facilitators to treating insomnia in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Res Dev Disabil. 2020;107:103792.
28. Temmesen CG, Nielsen HS, Andersen HLM, Petersen KB, Clemensen J. Using social media for qualitative health research in Danish women of reproductive age. JMIR Form Res. 2021;5(5):e24108.
29. Van den Heuvel JFM, Teunis CJ, Franx A, Crombag NMTH, Bekker MN. Home-based telemonitoring versus hospital admission in high-risk pregnancies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):1-9.
30. Ybarra ML, Price-Feeney M, Prescott T, Goodenow C, Saewyc E, Rosario M. Girl2Girl: development of a pregnancy prevention program for sexual minority adolescent girls. J Adolesc. 2020;85:41-58.
31. Schneider SJ, Kerwin J, Frechtling J, Vivari BA. Characteristics of the discussion in online and face-to-face focus groups. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2002;20(1):31-42.
32. Stewart K, Williams M. Researching online populations: the use of online focus groups for social research. Qual Res. 2005;5(4):395-416.
33. Brüggen E, Willems P. A critical comparison of offline focus groups, online focus groups and e-Delphi. Int J Market Res. 2009;51(3):363-81.
34. Bordini GB. As narrativas de adolescentes sobre gênero em um ambiente virtual [dissertação]. Rio Grande do Sul: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; 2010.
35. Deutsch MB, Radix A, Reisner S. What’s in a guideline? Developing collaborative research designs for transgender health care. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(11):1098-106.
36. Reisner SL, Randazzo RK, Hughto JMW, Peitzmeier S, DuBois LZ, Pardee DJ, et al. Sensitive health topics with underserved populations: methodological considerations. Int J Qual Methods. 2018;28(10):1658-73.
37. Quijano A. Colonialidade do poder. Em: CLACSO, editores. A colonialidade do saber: eurocentrismo e ciências sociais. Buenos Aires: CLACSO; 2005. p. 117-42.
38. Bourdieu P. Os usos sociais da ciência: por uma sociologia clínica do campo científico. São Paulo: Editora Unesp; 2004.
39. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa. Ofício Circular nº 2/2021/CONEP/SECNS/MS, de 24 de fevereiro de 2021. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2021.
40. Albuquerque A, Barboza HH. Remuneração dos participantes de pesquisas clínicas: considerações à luz da Constituição. Rev Bioet. 2016;24(1):29-36.
41. Castro LD. Pagamento a participantes de pesquisa. Reciis. 2008;2(1):54-65.
42. Silva MA, Pereira MMO, Antunes LGR, Silva FD, Castelar MC. Conciliando maternidade e carreira profissional: percepções de professoras do ensino superior. Rev Fac Int Vianna Junior. 2019;10(2):190-216.
43. Davim RMB, Anders BC, Dantas JC, Silva RAR, Nóbrega EJPB. Método mãe-canguru: vivência de mães no alojamento conjunto. Rev Rene. 2009;10(1):37-44.
44. Pindani M, Chilinda I, Botha J, Chorwe-Sungani G. Exploring community support on safe motherhood: a case of Lilongwe District, Malawi. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2021;13(1):1-7.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Virgínia de Menezes Portes, João Batista de Oliveira Junior, Dalvan Antônio de Campos, Vinícius André Boff, Mônica Machado Cunha e Mello, Stephany Yolanda Ril, Sheila Rúbia Lindner, Rodrigo Otávio Moretti-Pires
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Os direitos autorais para artigos publicados neste periódico são do autor, com os direitos de publicação para o periódico. Este periódico é de acesso público, os artigos são de uso gratuito, com atribuições próprias, desde que citada a fonte (por favor, veja a Licença Creative Commons no link a seguir https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pt_BR).
