Using qualitative research methods in biomedical innovation: the case of cultured red blood cells for transfusion

• DOI: 10.1186/s13104-016-2077-4
• Publication Date: 2016-05-11T07:30:25Z
• Authors: Catherine Lyall; Emma King
• Keywords: Participatory research; Erythrocytes; interviews; Interdisciplinarity; 610; Public engagement; public engagement; Interviews; 03 medical and health sciences; interdisciplinarity; 0302 clinical medicine; Qualitative research; Humans; Cells, Cultured; Qualitative Research; cultured red blood cells; Medicine(all); Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all); Upstream engagement; 05 social sciences; Focus Groups; Focus groups; 3. Good health; upstream engagement; Cultured red blood cells; focus groups; participatory research; 0509 other social sciences; Erythrocyte Transfusion; qualitative research; Research Article

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.Qualitative research methods including interviews and focus groups provide the methodological context for this paper.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.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.