BACKGROUND: Focus groups are used in qualitative research and increasingly so in the health and nursing sciences. There has been no previous research on how focus groups are used and reported in this context. A scoping review was conducted to address this question.
METHODS: The databases MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, and SSCI were searched for nursing and health science publications (2009-2019) that reported focus groups as a method. Due to the high number of hits, a one percent random sample was drawn per database. Two individuals checked the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction was performed using a literature-based matrix developed and discussed with experts. Results were content-analysed and quantified.
RESULTS: The random sample was n=408 publications, of which n=319 were included after reviewing the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The use of semi-structured interview guides was reported most frequently (43.9 %) (more often referred to as focus group interviews in the publications); open discussions (11 %) and discussions without any guiding questions (6.3 %) were reported less frequently (more often referred to as focus group discussions in the publications). In none of the publications was the aspect of group interaction included into the analysis. Although the reporting is based on international standards, some specific methodological aspects were often inadequately reported or not reported at all: in 92 % of the publications there is no information about the interaction of the participants, and in 72 % the role of the moderating person was not described in detail.
CONCLUSIONS: Semi-structured forms of focus groups predominate but open forms with only one introductory question are also used. It would have been expected that the interaction among the participants and group dynamic processes would have been considered in the more open approaches. Method-specific reporting items for focus groups have yet to be developed. This could contribute to an improvement of the reporting and critical reflection of, in particular, method-specific aspects. There is evidence that different nomenclature is used in the international literature, depending on the type of focus group. Researchers should choose the nomenclature carefully and describe the procedure precisely.
CONCLUSIONS: The scoping review provides first insights into how focus groups are conducted and reported in health and nursing science research. The potential of the method could be more fully exploited regarding the analysis of group interaction. Future methodological work dealing with the focus group method should promote the establishment of an internationally consented nomenclature and the development of criteria for transparent reporting for different types of focus groups.

Significant others are individuals representing family members or neighbors, friends, colleagues or members of the same household, who act as relatives or surrogates. Significant others play an important role when patients are transferred or discharged after hospitalization.
The objective of this review is to identify, appraise and synthesize the best available evidence exploring significant others\' experiences of the discharge or transfer of adult patients after hospitalization.
A qualitative comprehensive systematic review and meta aggregation.
Participants of this review are the \'significant other(s); persons who are important or influential to the patient\'s life.
How the significant others\' experience hospitalized patients\' transitions and the psychosocial and existential issues during transfer from hospital to home.
Studies that investigate the organizational culture during hospitalization.
Studies that focus on qualitative data including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research.
The search aimed at finding published and unpublished studies in English, German, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian, and was unrestricted by time. Eleven electronic databases and eleven websites were searched.
Methodological validity of the qualitative papers was assessed independently by two reviewers using the standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument.
Data were extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument.
Qualitative research findings were synthesized.
A total of 189 findings from twelve studies were aggregated into three categories. An aggregated finding was generated based on the primary studies: SOs existential strength is linked to preparations for the discharge including care planning meeting(s) and learning-by-doing care activities led by health care providers during hospitalizations.
The studies in this review provided useful and credible statements from caregivers\' voices that are not previously aggregated nor presented. The findings enlighten both positive and burdensome experiences in the everyday life of caring for a significant other after discharge.