Evaluating Focus Group Data: Barriers to Screening for Prostate Cancer Patients

  • William Dale
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 97)


There is no doubt that the quantitative sciences of mathematics and statistics have contributed enormously to the rapidly growing scientific knowledge in medicine. However, just as medicine combines the nonquantifiable art-of-care with the quantifiable science-of-medicine, health services research can profitably use nonmathematical data without sacrificing scientific practice. Health researchers used to reading tables full of t-tests and p-values may feel skeptical of the scientific validity of qualitative research. The purpose of this paper is to show how qualitative research using focus groups (FG) and content analysis can be use to advance knowledge about the attitudes of potential cancer patients. The focus of this study is demonstrating the proper way to use focus groups in research on prostate cancer (PC). An investigation the attitudes of selected at-risk elderly men toward a particular care-seeking behavior, having a digital rectal exam (DRE), is used as an illustration of the qualitative methodology. Throughout the paper, the methodological consideration, relating to research techniques behind the data are featured to clarify the methodology and reinforce the scientific value of the results.


Prostate Cancer Focus Group Prostate Cancer Patient Health Belief Model Digital Rectal Exam 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Steele GD, Jessup JM, Windhester DP, Menck HR, Murphy GP, Editors. National Cancer Data Base: Annual Review of Patient Care, 1995. Atlanta, Geogia: American Cancer Society, Inc.; 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dale W, Vijayakumar S, Lawlor E, Merrell K. Prostate cancer, race, and socioeconomic status: inadequate adjustment for social factors in assessing racial differences. Prostate 1996; 29:271–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albertsen PC. African-Americans and Prostate Cancer. Cancer J Sci Am. 1996; 2:225–33.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Merton RK, Fiske M, Kendall PL. The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures, 2 nd Edition. New York, NY: The Free Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Healthcom. A Handbook for Excellence in Focus Group Research. Washington, D.C.: Healthcom; 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenstock IM. The health belief model: origins and correlates. Health Education Monographs 1974; 2:336-Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becker MH, Maiman LA. Sociobehavioral determinants of compliance with health and medical care recommendations. Med Care 1975; 13:10–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: A decade later. Health Educ Q. 1984; 11: 1–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weinstein ND. Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychol 1993; 12:324–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Dale
    • 1
  1. 1.Harris School of Public Policy Studies and the Pritzker School of MedicineUniversity of ChicagoChicago

Personalised recommendations