PD44-11 UNDERSTANDING PATIENT PELVIC ORGAN EXPERIENCE COMPARING DIGITAL ETHNOGRAPHY AND FOCUS GROUPS—WHICH ONE DOES BETTER?

Field: Health Professions (Health Sciences)

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022PD44-11 UNDERSTANDING PATIENT PELVIC ORGAN EXPERIENCE COMPARING DIGITAL ETHNOGRAPHY AND FOCUS GROUPS—WHICH ONE DOES BETTER? Gabriela Gonzalez, Kristina Vaculik, Corey Arnold, Christopher Almario, Brennan Spiegel, and Jennifer Anger Gabriela GonzalezGabriela Gonzalez More articles by this author , Kristina VaculikKristina Vaculik More articles by this author , Corey ArnoldCorey Arnold More articles by this author , Christopher AlmarioChristopher Almario More articles by this author , Brennan SpiegelBrennan Spiegel More articles by this author , and Jennifer AngerJennifer Anger More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002605.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Prior qualitative focus group studies conducted at academic medical centers have elucidated our understanding of patients’ experience managing pelvic organ prolapse (POP). However, now that social media is highly sought after to answer medical concerns, we can utilize data from online forums to passively learn from patients. This study aimed to compare patient perceptions of POP discovered through internet research versus focus groups. Comparing results from both methods will enhance our understanding of women’s experience with POP and support the analysis of online forums for qualitative studies with interventions. METHODS: We compared our prior digital ethnography analysis themes based on 3,451 posts identified from 117 websites using a data mining service (Treato) to data from four published POP focus groups. Three focus groups were conducted at UCLA, Cedars-Sinai, Olive View, and University of Mexico medical centers. The fourth study was conducted at the University of Pittsburgh. Women were recruited from specialty centers to participate in the focus groups. The themes from online forums were compared to those from all the focus groups. RESULTS: Each theme from the focus group data also emerged in our social media analysis. Interestingly, one of the focus groups highlighted differences among English and Spanish-speaking women diagnosed with POP, which we could not analyze with social media. Thematic findings from forums were more detailed and identified novel themes not previously elicited with patient interviews (Table 1). Unique online themes focused on surgical perceptions, decision making, online peer engagement, and non-evidence-based perceived risk factors. The social media themes were more detailed with candid, private insights based on online forum text, likely due to the freedom provided by the internet. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms our understanding of women’s experience with POP, and it supports the reliability of conducting qualitative analysis using social media. The inherent anonymity of digital ethnography allows for candid personal, and unbiased information to be collected. Although online forum analysis provides access to extensive, diverse data, it may not be the best method of studying disparities in care. Source of Funding: NIDDK PLUS Research Consortium © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e712 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Gabriela Gonzalez More articles by this author Kristina Vaculik More articles by this author Corey Arnold More articles by this author Christopher Almario More articles by this author Brennan Spiegel More articles by this author Jennifer Anger More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...