Bibliografía

This section is part of the qualitative chapter of the study (figure 1). This focuses on the qualitative methods used to gather an in-depth understanding of mothers, care-experienced young peopleand professionals’ attitudes towards the collection and linkage of routinely collected sensitive data, specifically child maltreatment data.

An asynchronous online focus group methodology was used to gather professionals’ attitudes towards the collection and linkage of child maltreatment data. Three face-to-face focus groups were conducted on the same topic for three groups of participants (younger and older

mothers and care-experienced young people). Semi-structured telephone interviews were also conducted with participants from the professionals’ group.

Figure 1. How the study objectives relate to each research question

3.2.2 Participants

Approaching and recruiting mothers and care-experienced young people

Three face-to-face focus groups were run. One with younger mothers, one with older mothers, and one with young people who have had some experience of the social care system.

Objectives 3, 4, 5

89

 Younger mother group

These were an existing group of younger, mostly teenage, mothers with young children who attended a drop-in centre for young parents at the Y.M.C.A. in Pontypridd (called ‘Our Place’).

This group was recruited through an existing relationship that they have with the Building Blocks: 2-6 Study. The group was involved with the study’s Public and Patient Involvement activities. They acted as advisors on communicating data linkage issues with study participants.

An approach letter was sent to the drop-in centre asking them to hand out a leaflet to mothers advertising the focus group. A pre-selected time and date was arranged between the

researcher and the drop-in centre staff. Any mothers interested in attending made this known to the centre staff who invited them to attend the group and handed them an information sheet. Once participants registered an interest to be in the focus group a confirmation letter was distributed to interested mothers by the facilitator of the Y.M.C.A group. The researcher was interested in gathering this participant groups’ views and attitudes on the topic in question to gain an understanding of the views of a group that share similar demographic characteristics to the participants in the Building Blocks cohort: they were aged 25 or under, and had at least one child under 6 years old.

 Care-experienced young people group

These were members of an existing group called CASCADE Voices, a collaboration between Voices from Care Cymru and CASCADE, Cardiff University. Voices from Care Cymru are an independent organisation who aim to bring together young people from Wales who have been looked after, and to provide them with opportunities, improve the conditions of being in care, promote the view of young people and to protect the interests of young people in care. The CASCADE Voices group are a group of care-experienced young people who advise on research projects from design to dissemination. This group was recruited through an existing

relationship between CASCADE Voices and the Building Blocks: 2-6 Study. An approach letter was sent to CASCADE Voices staff asking them to hand out a leaflet (appendix 6 contains the leaflet circulated to the young people as an example of such material) to the young people advertising the focus group. A pre-selected time and date was arranged between the researcher and CASCADE Voices staff. Any young people interested in attending made this known to staff who invited them to attend the group and handed them an information sheet.

The researcher was interested in conducting a focus group with this group of participants in order to understand more about how young people who have had some experience of the care system feel about researchers collecting and linking child maltreatment data. Due to the

90 personal circumstances of many of the young people who attend this group, the researcher was advised by CASCADE Voices staff that it could not be guaranteed that enough young people would turn up on the day to be enough for a focus group. Indeed this was the case, therefore a focus group consisting of a mixture of some care-experienced young people and staff members from CASCADE Voices was run. A second focus group was then arranged to consisting of care experienced young people only.

 Older mothers group

This was a group of mothers whose children attend a local primary school in Cardiff. They formed an existing informal group who regularly meet for coffee. They had at least one child of primary school age but they also may have other children of varying ages. This group was recruited thorough a personal connection of one of the PhD supervisors with the school. They approached the group to ask if they would be interested in taking part in a focus group and handed leaflets on the topics discussed at the group and an information sheet. The group invited the researcher to attend one of their weekly meetings. The researcher was interested in the views of this participant population to gain a perspective of mothers who are older than those in the Building Blocks cohort: members of the group were 25 or older.

The decision to select participants from existing groups for all three face-to-face focus groups was based on the feasibility of finding participants. Existing groups were also selected as the participants may have better rapport with each other and be more comfortable discussing sensitive topics such as child maltreatment if they are already somewhat familiar with one another. Morgan and Krueger (1997) advise that building on existing contacts is a useful way to recruit participants.

Recruiting a group of fathers was also attempted, but the researcher was unable to identify an existing group to use.

The researcher planned for each face-to-face focus group to contain 6-8 participants (72). El Emam et al (2011) assumed a 33% no show rate for their focus groups, which seems

reasonable, therefore as a contingency plan at least 9 participants were recruited to each focus group.

91 Before each face-to-face focus group the researcher checked that all participants had received the information sheet (see example information sheet in appendix 7) and had a chance to read this. Before the groups began, the participants were provided with a further verbal explanation of the focus group process and given the opportunity to ask any questions or discuss concerns.

They were asked if happy to proceed with the focus group, and asked to sign consent forms (see example consent form in appendix 8). Participants were also asked to complete eligibility screens to ascertain if they were competent to provide consent and did not need a translator to be part of the focus groups. Demographic data were also collected including age group, age of child(ren) (if in either of the ‘mothers’ groups), and whether they were currently in

education (for the ‘care experienced’ group). At the end the participants were thanked for their time.

Approaching and recruiting professional participants

One asynchronous online focus group was run consisting of UK professionals who are

responsible for recording maltreatment data in records. They were currently working in the UK and reporting and recording data on child maltreatment as part of their job role. They were approached through the researchers’ professional contacts, i.e. people who had worked with the researcher in the past or known to the researcher in a professional context. They were approached via email. A ‘snowballing’ technique was also used; every participant who agreed to take part were asked if they knew of anyone else suitable to be approached. It should be noted that this method produces a biased sample as the group consists of members who are comfortable with the concept of electronic data sharing.

Participants who registered an interest to take part in the online focus group were emailed an information sheet and asked to register on a website (described in detail in the interview schedules section 3.2.3.2). When registering on the website they were asked to complete an eligibility screen and the consent process by reading an online consent form and ticking a box.

Demographic data were also collected through the website, including age, gender and occupation.

The plan was for the online focus groups to contain 6-10 participants, and as a contingency plan approximately 12 participants were recruited allowing for attrition (a greater amount of attrition is to be expected when asking participants to take part in an online group than a

face-92 to-face group). In the contacts with participants prior to the focus group the importance of their contribution was emphasised to minimise attrition.

On completion of the online focus group each participant was approached via email and offered the opportunity to take part in a follow-on telephone interview. They were asked to contact the researcher if interested in taking part. Participants who registered an interest were contacted directly by the researcher who sent them an information sheet and a convenient interview time was arranged.

Before the telephone interview the researcher checked that the participant had received the information sheet and had a chance to read this. They were then asked if they were happy to proceed and verbal consent was audio recorded along with the rest of the interview. At the end of the interview the participant was given another opportunity to discuss any points of interest, to discuss the interview or to express any concerns.

The younger mothers and the older mothers were offered a children’s book to the value of £15 per participant to thank them for their time. The care-experienced young people were not offered children’s books as they were paid for any time they gave to working with researchers by CASCADE. The professional participants taking part in the online group were not offered compensation for their time. All face-to-face focus group participants were handed expense forms to complete for travel and sustenance.