Interpretive focus groups: a participatory method for interpreting and extending secondary analysis of qualitative data

References

• Stringer E. Action research. 4th ed. 2014; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mills J, Birks M. Qualitative methodology: a practical guide. 2014; London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin S. Qualitative secondary data analysis: ethics, epistemology and context. Prog Dev Stud. 2013; 13: 295–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteside M, Mills J, McCalman J. Using secondary data for grounded theory analysis. Aust Soc Work. 2012; 1–13. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0312407X.2011.645165#.U59_bPmSydw [cited 5 August 2014]..
   Google Scholar
• Bainbridge R, Whiteside M, McCalman J. Being, knowing, and doing: a phronetic approach to constructing grounded theory with Aboriginal Australian partners. Qual Health Res. 2013; 23: 275–88. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Broom A, Cheshire L, Emmison M. Qualitative researchers’ understandings of their practice and the implications for data archiving and sharing. Sociology. 2009; 43: 1163–80.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. 2014; London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Birks M, Mills J. Grounded theory: a practical guide. 2011; London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Corti L, Day A, Backhouse G. Confidentiality and informed consent: issues for consideration in the preservation of and provision of access to qualitative data archives. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2000. 1: Art.7. Available from: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1024/2208 [cited 4 August 2014]..
   Google Scholar
• Alston M, Bowles W. Research for social workers. 3rd ed. 2012; Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Yardley SJ, Watts KM, Pearson J, Richardson JC. Ethical issues in the reuse of qualitative data: perspectives from literature, practice, and participants. Qual Health Res. 2014; 24: 102–13. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Heaton J. Reworking qualitative data. 2004; London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger R, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 3rd ed. 2000; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research. 1988. 85 p; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Liamputtong P. Focus group methodology: principles and practice. 2011; London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1995; 311: 299–302. [PubMed CentralFull Text].
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson S. Focus groups in feminist research: power, interaction, and the co-construction of meaning. Wom Stud Int Forum. 1998; 21: 111–25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(97)00080-0 .
   Google Scholar
• Chiu LF. Transformational potential of focus group practice in participatory action research. Action Res. 2003; 1: 165–83.
   Google Scholar
• Smith LT. Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. 2nd ed. 2012; London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Mertens DM. Transformative research and evaluation. 2009; New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Genat B. Building emergent situated knowledges in participatory action research. Action Res. 2009; 7: 101–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovach M. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. 1st ed. 2009; Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chilisa B. Indigenous research methods. 2012; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dodson L, Schmalzbauer L, Piatelli D. Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy PL. A conversation about Interpretive Focus Groups. Feminist research practice: a primer. 2007; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dodson L, Schmalzbauer L. Poor mothers and habits of hiding: participatory methods in poverty research. J Marriage Fam. 2005; 67: 949–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leavy P. Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy PL. The practice of feminist oral history and focus group interviews. Feminist research practice: a primer. 2007; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE research methods.
   Google Scholar
• Favero LW, Heath RG. Generational perspectives in the workplace. J Bus Comm. 2012; 49: 332–56.
   Google Scholar
• Redman-MacLaren M, Tommbe R, Mills J, MacLaren DJ, McBride J. Women's experience of male circumcision in Papua New Guinea: a grounded theory study . 2014; 20th International AIDS Conference 20–25 July.
   Google Scholar
• Redman-MacLaren ML, Mills J, Tommbe R, MacLaren DJ, Speare R, McBride WJ. Women and HIV in a moderate prevalence setting: an integrative review. BMC Public Health. 2013; 13: 552. [PubMed Abstract] [PubMed CentralFull Text].
   Google Scholar
• Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Med. 2005; 2: e298. [PubMed Abstract] [PubMed CentralFull Text].
   Google Scholar
• Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, Agot K, Maclean I, Krieger JN, etal. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007; 369: 643–56. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, Makumbi F, Watya S, Nalugoda F, etal. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007; 369: 657–66. [PubMed Abstract].
   Google Scholar
• MacLaren D, Tommbe R, Mafile'o T, Manineng C, Fregonese F, Redman-MacLaren M. Foreskin cutting beliefs and practices and the acceptability of male circumcision for HIV prevention in Papua New Guinea. BMC Public Health. 2013; 13: 818. [PubMed Abstract] [PubMed CentralFull Text].
   Google Scholar
• Explanatory note on 2013 HDR composite indices: Papua New Guinea [Internet]. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. 2013; Geneva. Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country-Profiles/PNG.pdf..
   Google Scholar
• Vallely A, MacLaren D, Kaleva W, Millan J, Tommbe R, Marape W, etal. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in PNG: a summary of research evidence and recommendations for public health. PNG Med J. 2011; 54: 91–108.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vallely A, MacLaren D. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in Papua New Guinea: a summary of two research projects. Briefing document, Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research and James Cook University. 2011; Cairns
   Google Scholar
• Tommbe R, MacLaren D. Researching male circumcision for HIV prevention in Papua New Guinea: a process that incorporates science, faith and culture. Health Res Pol Syst. 2013; 11: 1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pittaway E, Bartolomei L. Community consultations using reciprocal research methodologies. 2012; Sydney: Centre for Refugee Research, University of New South Wales.
   Google Scholar
• Redman-MacLaren M, Browne K. Gendered responses to male circumcision for HIV prevention . 2014; Cairns HIV Hub Conference 2014; 28–29 July.
   Google Scholar
• Liebenberg L. The visual image as discussion point: increasing validity in boundary crossing research. Qual Res. 2009; 9: 441–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simeon L, Tracie Mo, Api UK, Gane B, Thomas B. Successful models of youth leadership: a study of Papua New Guinea Youth. 2010; Port Moresby: Pacific Adventist University with Pacific Leadership Program, AusAID.
   Google Scholar
• Tommbe R, Redman-MacLaren M, Mafile'o T, Manineng C, McBride W, MacLaren D. Acceptability of male circumcision for HIV prevention in PNG: positives and negatives for women. 2011; PNG Sexual Health Society Meeting, PNG Medical Symposium 8–9 September,.
   Google Scholar