Centering Participant Voice in the Reporting of Focus Group Findings for Program Evaluation

Background and Purpose: Focus groups and interviews are common in qualitative evaluation research and are increasingly valued as an important source of diverse information (Basch, 1984; Morgan, 1997). While most focus groups follow a set of questions outlined by the researcher, discussion and content are often shaped by the personal experiences of participants. Currently, there is limited data regarding techniques for centering participant voice and lived experiences in focus group analysis and reporting. This research is part of a larger safe sleep program evaluation studying caregiver experience of safe sleep education. The primary research question is: How can researchers center participant voice and lived experience in focus group analysis and reporting for program evaluation?

Methods: Seven focus groups and one interview were conducted with 29 caregivers of infants under 12 months who completed a safe sleep training program in a Midwestern state. Most participants identified as female, ages 19 to 43, and came from diverse racial backgrounds. Participants were asked questions about their experience with the training, strengths and challenges of implementation, and recommendations. Focus groups were recorded, professionally transcribed, and uploaded to Dedoose. Paired coding and peer debriefing were used to gain consensus, and an inductive approach was used to extract themes.

Findings: Analysis of focus group transcripts identified five primary themes and corresponding subthemes. Four themes included: 1) caregivers’ positive experience with the training; 2) access to resources and concrete support; 3) challenges in adhering to safe sleep recommendations and; 4) recommendations for improving programming. A fifth theme emerged about how caregivers’ personal history and culture shaped their experiences with safe sleep. In establishing themes and building a report to share with program grantees, researchers organized the report to center the experiences of the caregiver using strengths-based, people-first language. Themes and subthemes were contextualized with caregiver quotes, rather than the researchers’ summary of the interview responses. This caregiver-centered method of reporting amplified the voices of caregivers, giving program grantees the opportunity to best understand the experiences of those directly impacted by the safe sleep trainings. Additionally, researchers included a section on strengths and recommendations for programming that came directly from caregiver quotes that were adjusted only to help grantees identify tangible modifications to future programs.

Implications: This research provides techniques and support for centering participant voice in the thematic analysis and reporting of qualitative interview findings. Focus group findings presented to partners using direct quotes of study participants rather than researcher summaries offers feedback to service providers grounded in the voices and lived experiences of those impacted by the programming. While this analysis and reporting method will not completely remove the researcher from the equation, reporting with quotes as primary source information reduces bias the researcher introduces. This research acknowledges that, in program evaluations, the audience is the change agent. As service providers develop and revise programming to meet a need, this study highlights the importance of staying true to the voices and lived experiences of those directly impacted.