BACKGROUND:
Stakeholder engagement in evaluation of
medical devices is crucial for aligning
devices with stakeholders' views,
needs, and values.
Methods for these engagements have however not been compared to analyse their relative merits for
medical device evaluation. Therefore, we systematically compared these three
methods in terms of themes, interaction, and
time-
investment.
METHODS:
We compared
focus groups, interviews, and an online
survey in a case-study on minimally invasive
endoscopy-guided
surgery for
patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. The
focus groups and interviews featured two rounds, one explorative focussing on individual perspectives, and one interactive focussing on the exchange of perspectives between participants. The comparison between
methods was made in terms of number and content of themes, how participants interact, and hours invested by all
researchers.
RESULTS:
The
focus groups generated 34 themes, the interviews 58, and the
survey 42. Various improvements for the assessment of the
surgical procedure were only discussed in the interviews. In
focus groups, participants were inclined to emphasise agreement and support, whereas the interviews consisted of questions and answers. The total
time investment for
researchers of
focus groups was 95 h, of interviews 315 h, and
survey 81 h.
CONCLUSIONS:
Within the context of
medical device evaluation, interviews appeared to be the most appropriate
method for
understanding stakeholder views since they provide a scope and depth of information that is not generated by other
methods.
Focus groups were useful to rapidly bring views together. Surveys enabled a quick exploration.
Researchers should account for these methodological differences and select the
method that is suitable for their
research aim.