Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/23240
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLyall, Catherineen_UK
dc.contributor.authorKing, Emmaen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2016-12-09T23:05:10Z-
dc.date.available2016-12-09T23:05:10Z-
dc.date.issued2016-05-11en_UK
dc.identifier.other267en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/23240-
dc.description.abstractBackground  Qualitative research has a key role to play in biomedical innovation projects. This article focuses on the appropriate use of robust social science methodologies (primarily focus group studies) for identifying the public’s willingness and preference for emerging medical technologies. Our study was part of the BloodPharma project (now known as the Novosang project) to deliver industrially generated red blood cells for transfusion. Previous work on blood substitutes shows that the public prefers donated human blood. However, no research has been conducted concerning attitudes to stem cell derived red blood cells.  Method  Qualitative research methods including interviews and focus groups provide the methodological context for this paper.  Results  Focus groups were used to elicit views from sub-sections of the UK population about the potential use of such cultured red blood cells. We reflect on the appropriateness of that methodology in the context of the BloodPharma project. Findings are in the form of lessons transferable to other interdisciplinary, science-led teams about what a social science dimension can bring; why qualitative research should be included; and how it can be used effectively.  Discussion  Qualitative data collection offers the strength of exploring ambivalence and investigating the reasons for views, but not necessarily their prevalence in wider society. The inherent value of a qualitative method, such as focus groups, therefore lies in its ability to uncover new information. This contrasts with a quantitative approach to simply ‘measuring’ public opinion on a topic about which participants may have little prior knowledge. We discuss a number of challenges including: appropriate roles for embedded social scientists and the intricacies of doing upstream engagement as well as some of the design issues and limitations associated with the focus group method.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_UK
dc.relationLyall C & King E (2016) Using qualitative research methods in biomedical innovation: the case of cultured red blood cells for transfusion. BMC Research Notes, 9, Art. No.: 267. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2077-4en_UK
dc.rights© The Author(s). 2016 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectCultured red blood cellsen_UK
dc.subjectPublic engagementen_UK
dc.subjectParticipatory researchen_UK
dc.subjectInterdisciplinarityen_UK
dc.subjectFocus groupsen_UK
dc.subjectInterviewsen_UK
dc.subjectQualitative researchen_UK
dc.subjectUpstream engagementen_UK
dc.titleUsing qualitative research methods in biomedical innovation: the case of cultured red blood cells for transfusionen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13104-016-2077-4en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid27170008en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBMC Research Notesen_UK
dc.citation.issn1756-0500en_UK
dc.citation.volume9en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailemma.king@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date11/05/2016en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Edinburghen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationHealth Sciences Research - Stirling - LEGACYen_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84969235330en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid569008en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-3611-9647en_UK
dc.date.accepted2016-05-04en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-05-04en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2016-05-30en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorLyall, Catherine|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorKing, Emma|0000-0003-3611-9647en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2016-05-30en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2016-05-30|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameLyall_and_King_BMC_ResearchNotes_2016.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source1756-0500en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Lyall_and_King_BMC_ResearchNotes_2016.pdfFulltext - Published Version903 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.