Study sample
We recruited 48 individuals, aged 15–20 years. Nine focus groups were conducted from October 2018 through to March 2019 and were hosted on the school/college site or within the local community for those not in education. The focus groups lasted between 21 and 35 minutes. Participant numbers varied across focus groups (n = 4–7). Participants were (a) school students in the last year of compulsory school (Year 11, 15-16y; n = 13), (b) school/college students in Sixth Form (Year 13, 17-18y; n = 16), (c) FE students (16-18y; n = 11) and (d) young adults NEET, who ideally did not have any post-school qualifications (18-20y; n = 4). Table 1 present demographic characteristics of the participants.
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of focus group participants. *
Variable | Category | Year 11 (N = 13) | Sixth Form (N = 16) | Further Education College (N = 11) | NEET (N = 4) | Total (N = 44) |
Age | 15-16y | 13 (100%) | | 3 (27%) | | 16 (36%) |
17-18y | | 15 (100%) | 8 (73%) | 1 (25%) | 24 (55%) |
19-20y | | | | 3 (75%) | 3 (7%) |
Gender | Female | 8 (62%) | 14 (88%) | 7 (64%) | 2 (50%) | 31 (70%) |
Male | 5 (38%) | 2 (12%) | 4 (36%) | 2 (50%) | 13 (30%) |
Ethnicity | White | 12 (100%) | 5 (31%) | 10 (91%) | 4 (100%) | 31 (72%) |
Asian | | 8 (50%) | | | 8 (19%) |
Other | | 3 (19%) | 1 (9%) | | 4 (9%) |
Family Affluence score | Low | 1 (8%) | 0 | 1 (9%) | 2 (50%) | 4 (9%) |
Medium | 4 (31%) | 6 (38%) | 3 (27%) | 1 (25%) | 14 (32%) |
High | 8 (62%) | 10 (73%) | 7 (64%) | 1 (25%) | 26 (59%) |
Free School Meals | No | 12 (100%) | 11 (73%) | 1 (9%) | 2 (50%) | 26 (62%) |
Yes | | 4 (27%) | 10 (91%) | 2 (50%) | 16 (38%) |
*Percentages calculated from available data. Missing data: Full questionnaire: n = 4 (all NEET); Ethnicity n = 1; Free School Meals n = 2; Age n = 1. |
Themes
Analysis determined seven themes illustrated in the below section. Most themes were conceptualized as domain summaries, reporting what participants said in relation to the interview question (34); for example, requirements of a recruitment advertisement, and preferred modes of recruitment. Other themes were shared meaning-based patterns, for example, commitment over long transitioning periods. Illustrative anonymised quotes typify the data from the focus groups. Few differences were observed between adolescent and young adult respondents and therefore findings are combined unless specifically stated.
Requirements of a recruitment advertisement
Participants indicated that they wanted to know from the initial advertisement what the study was about, a rationale of why the research is being conducted, what they would get out of participating, how and where data collection would take place, the requirements of them, what the research will do, and how it will benefit others. Sixth Formers also wanted to know where the research would be published. A few participants suggested that they were more likely to get involved in a longitudinal study if they knew what their participation contributed to on a broader scale (e.g., how it would help in the future).
In describing the requirements of how a recruitment advertisement should look, participants prioritized visibility of the institutional logo on the initial advertisement of the study. All groups suggested that sign up would increase if the study was conducted by a ‘trusted’ and ‘credible’ institution. Participants suggested this should be made clear by the branding used and that a study website should have a secure lock following the URL. In addition, participants wanted the advert to ‘look interesting’ and be ‘visually appealing for that age group’. For participants not in education, this looked like the inclusion of imaging, or positive facts. Sixth Formers on the other hand, suggested a catchy tagline, with the advert showing something that they could relate to, something to do with their life, so that they could imagine people their age participating. It was suggested that including images of people older than them would cause hesitancy in participation. All focus groups reiterated the importance of simple messaging use on recruitment advertisements.
Interest and relevance of research to me
There was a firm belief from participants across all focus groups that sign up required interest in the topic area of the study. Involvement was described as purely dependent on interest. In a discussion with Sixth Formers, a hypothetical study of ‘lifestyle behaviours, diet, exercise and health’, was suggested. While most expressed an interest, one participant said that the title alone would not appeal to them. Further education students similarly discussed that some topics would turn people off. For example, one participant mentioned that a study about fitness or physical activity would not appeal to them. If there was no interest in the area, then it was believed that people would not volunteer to participate:
I think it’s more specific to the person, if you’ve got the interest then you’re going to want to take part, and if you’re not interested in the slightest then you’re going to be like it’s not worth my time, even with the incentives, you’re really, really not interested in whatever, it’s not going to be anything for you.
(NEET focus group)
Interest promoted involvement and was further linked to the time commitment of a longitudinal study. If participants were interested, they were happier to commit time to the study. One way of making a study interesting was variability in measurements over periods of time. For example, one Sixth Former participant stated:
If you said it in like an exciting way, like instead of saying “oh you’re going to be in our study for ten years”, like this makes me feel “Oh, that’s long”. But if it was like an engagement that we do different things and stuff, then it just makes it more interesting.
What’s in it for me? Incentivising participation
All focus groups included discussions around perceived personal benefit. The following examples were given: motivation, cooking skills, learning, or, specifically for Sixth Formers, enhancing their personal statement. Other discussions had a focus on the receipt of personalised feedback as a personal benefit to facilitate retention. For example, up-to-date personalised feedback about their overall health, their individual steps per day, or weight loss. In turn, this personalised feedback would potentially facilitate actions on how they could improve their health.
Incentives were an important identified factor for recruitment and retention. For participants, incentives were an assumed part of the research process:
P-1: I wouldn’t do it for nothing. I’ll just say that now. You’ve got to be rewarded for doing it
P-3: You need something to actually make you want to do it. And like all studies do give people money, no-one really does it without…
(NEET focus group)
Suggested incentives included money, a monetary voucher, a subscription (e.g., Netflix), discount codes for favourite stores, or, for younger participants (Year 11), a trip to Alton Towers (an amusement park), or music festival tickets (Sixth Formers). Financial incentives were discussed as being dependent upon what was required of the participant. For example, some participants suggested £10 for an hour. Participants indicated that each measurement session or data collection measure should equate to an incentive. This could be provided once a month, rather than each time a participant completed a survey, and could also be accumulative over a time e.g., you completed three out of the five surveys and will receive X amount. All participants preferred to receive a guaranteed incentive, rather than a chance to win a larger financial reward.
An important factor for some participants was that they had the choice or options to select from. Participants suggested that through data collection, e.g., focus groups, the research team could build a relationship with participants to offer an incentive that they would like.
An additional but subsequent thought was given to how participants’ involvement in the research would help others:
I think if you know the data’s going to be helping others as well, that would like be interesting.
(Sixth Form focus group)
Some participants detailed that they would want to be involved in a larger scale study to have a ‘grander’ impact, understanding their role in ‘what is going on in the bigger picture’.
Commitment over long transitioning periods of time
Commitment was a key factor in the decisions on whether to become involved in a study. Before committing to a study, participants wanted to be clear on timeframe:
When and stuff like that, because if it’s like a study for our age, like we’re doing a lot so it’s like yeah like a timeframe, but probably be suitable to know like when we’re meeting, when you can, when you can’t, like that.
(Sixth Form focus group)
Discussions around the time investment required differed across participant groups. For Sixth Formers, a ‘long time’ was identified as ‘a couple of weeks’ by one participant, ‘a couple of months’ by another, and ‘about a year’ by another participant. FE participants indicated that three years was a ‘proper commitment’. For recruitment into studies, participants in Sixth Form grappled with the time investment:
If it takes a lot of your time then I wouldn’t do it, but if like all the commitment you have to make are fairly short then yeah.
Participants NEET also discussed commitment in relation to time investments:
P-1: I’d just be like would I be able to commit to it? Because [sighs] I don’t know, it would be hard to.
P-4: At the same time, I feel like committing to it would help with time management and coming to things in future as well, so I feel like I would…
A vital consideration linked to recruitment and retention was timing. All focus group discussions acknowledged the transitioning time of adolescents to early adulthood. Some Sixth Formers discussed that if their involvement commenced at 16 years of age, and the study was for two years, that they would be involved as they knew they would be at college for this time. However, after this time, participants indicated that their involvement would require a greater commitment as it would be alongside university, work, and travel plans. Young adults NEET agreed with this idea and identified that after school, general life, prior obligations, social events, work, and the idea of not knowing where they would be in a years’ time were key barriers to committing to a longitudinal study:
It’s like can you like maintain that commitment while everything else is changing around you as well?
Despite the perceived ease of participating while at college, Sixth Former participants also discussed barriers to their involvement. One consideration included the academic pressure at college:
I think just like it requires commitment and then you just like can’t be bothered because then you’ve got like your A-levels and that work to do.
Further Education participants also indicated that school/college would take precedence, and could potentially override any recruitment during this time:
P-1: I just wouldn’t like know if I could be bothered when I’m like…
P-4: There’s a lot going on at school
Due to academic commitments, participants said that they may not reply during this time, and that it was important for the research team to avoid communications during busy periods. Some indicated that they would be happier to participate if it did not ‘affect your academic work’, and that key transitional points were to be avoided in general.
Participants gave thought as to how to advertise longitudinal studies to avoid immediately deterring potential participants. Ten years was deemed a long time, however, one Sixth Form participant stated that it would be better advertised as how many times you would be required to meet face-to-face as ‘that seemed less’. Participants detailed that they would want ownership over the length of their involvement from the beginning of the study. One FE participant provided an example:
If you do it, it’s like you do a year and then you have a possibility of a second year but then what you get for the second year is better than the first year, like loyalty kind of thing.
Preferred modes of recruitment
Participants specified several recruitment modes that they perceived would be effective. Social media was mentioned across all focus groups. Instagram was the preferred method of recruitment. Specifically, participants advocated for Instagram advertisements, and the ‘swipe up’ feature on the app, which allows those who are interested to find out more about a particular product/event/study etc. Facebook was the second most popular social media recruitment method mentioned, however, this was not endorsed by Sixth Formers. Snapchat and Spotify were also mentioned in the discussions about recruitment methods.
Participants in Year 11, Sixth Formers and those in FE, noted school/college email circulations as an additional method of recruitment. These were detailed as an effective recruitment currently used to circulate job vacancies and voluntary positions. Additional suggestions working with schools and colleges included posters or having the research team come into classes or assemblies.
An additional key element of recruitment mentioned by participants from Year 11, Sixth Formers, and FE students, was the option to participate in research alongside peers from their friendship groups. Participants stated that participating in the research process was something they would rather do with friends, as opposed to individually. They expressed that if friends were involved in the research with you, that it might help you to become involved and maintain involvement. Some participants stated that they would avoid focus groups with people they did not know as it would make participants ‘feel weird’ and ‘refrain from saying stuff’ (Sixth Form participants). A Year 11 student commented:
I’d be a lot more comfortable if there’s people that I knew doing it as well, so if you could reach out to like more of a group instead of just individual people from everywhere, I think that’d be better.
However, participants NEET were more open to meeting new people as this was identified as more difficult after they left education.
User friendly data collection
Participant discussions around data collection emphasized flexibility and convenience. Participants preferred local data collection locations, those close to work or study, to ensure that the site was accessible and familiar to them. Suggestions included school/college sites, a local hospital or general practice, local library or somewhere central to the area. Data collection at home was considered ‘weird’ by participants in Year 11.
Data collection needed to be flexible and work around their timetable. Some preferred drop-in sessions to allow for flexibility and change of plans, while others preferred a booking system to ensure a specific time. Time commitment suggestions varied. Generally, participants indicated that they would be happy to complete data collection procedures once a month, for 20–30 minutes per time. Many preferred one data collection point for all measures ‘to get it all over and done with in one moment in time’ (Year 11 focus group), rather than completing a daily survey; those in Year 11 stated that they did not have the ‘motivation’ to do this.
Discussions from various focus groups stated the importance of wording choice for data collection. Simple messages were key to effective communication. Participants in Year 11 suggested that there was a need for simple questions. A participant in FE College also commented on the importance of wording choice:
…explain the actual word ‘focus group’ because when she (teacher) told us to come here (to attend the focus group) we were like we’ve got to talk about our feelings and stuff.
Most of the participants preferred an app for online survey data collection. An app would need to be easy to use, have no cost, and did not require much phone storage (megabytes). An additional stipulation was that the app would not track GPS. This was described as ‘creepy’ and ‘intrusive’. The alternative, having to post the survey off, was considered additional effort and a barrier for some.
Some Year 11 participants preferred to complete a survey for data collection whilst at school. This was due to perceived ease:
Because I feel like I’d lose it, or I wouldn’t take it seriously, if it’s at school in the classroom, get it done, then give it back straightaway.
For these participants, being at school changed their mind-set of participating; the study became linked to schoolwork. Completing a survey at home would feel like homework and would encroach on their leisure time. This was reiterated by a Sixth Form focus group where data collection was preferred to be embedded in college time as outside of college hours ‘seems like extra effort’. This was contrasted by participants not in education who preferred data collection after work and not on weekends, as ‘weekends is my time’.
All participants indicated that they would be happy to wear a device, such as a physical activity monitor. Participants wanted to know what the device was measuring and stated that the device must be small and comfortable, easy to hide for social occasions, and not compromise their work or involvement in sport. The preference was a watch monitor, similar to a Fitbit, however, this was not seen as viable for sports such as netball, and a belt may be preferred in this situation.
Maintaining contact throughout the study
All participants stated that they would be happy to provide their phone number and email address for maintaining contact; two ways to be contacted was deemed appropriate by participants. Other suggestions included home address (Year 11) and Facebook (NEET). Many indicated that they did not check their emails regularly, and that they would prefer tailored and specific text communication via their phone, rather than a phone call.
If the study did have an app, notifications were stated as the best way to keep in touch, though minimal notifications were preferred. Some indicated they may delete the app if notifications were too frequent. To avoid overburden, a similar preference was expressed for other forms of communication. However, participants were happy to be contacted a week before for data collection measures, a day before data collection measures, and to be reminded three times to complete. If no reply was received after three contact points, then it was suggested that the participant is no longer interested. General updates about the study, with a reminder as to how their data is helping, what information the team has gained thus far, and what is next, were happy to be received every few months. A further reminder of the benefits to participants was suggested by participants not in education.
Participants placed importance on those working with them in data collection. Discussions detailed that the person taking measurements should be ‘approachable’, and ‘non-judgemental’. They preferred consistency with who was collecting data from them, and who was communicating with them. A Sixth Former discussion detailed a preference for ‘talking to someone you trust’. Another participant stated:
I’d rather build a relationship with the person first before I talk to them.