Method

The discussions were about older adults’ attitudes and concerns about healthy living and the use of Internet and mobile technologies. The discussions were also about the possible use of mobile technologies for older adults in relation to maintaining balanced nutrition and to drinking sufficient liquids. Two sizes of focus group were conducted: small focus group with three older adults, and large focus group with six older adults. Both focus groups were moderated by the same person. The moderator was experienced at focus group moderation.

To investigate whether the size of focus group with older adults affected the information elicited, the analysis of data elicited from four focus groups. Two of the focus groups (one small, one large) were for my programme of research. The other two focus groups (one

small, one large) were about the possible use of technology for older adults in relation to mobility and wellbeing, and conducted for a different research project being conducted in the HCI Research Group (Bevan et al., 2016; Swallow et al., 2016), (hereafter “Co-Motion”). Further details on Co-Motion are available at Appendix 1.

3.2.2 Participants

The inclusion criteria for the focus groups was to be 65 years or over and living independently, either alone or with a partner. Nine participants took part in two focus groups, 3 in small group and 6 in the large group.

As there were no definite number of participants for focus groups especially with older adults, I chose 3 for the small group as this is the minimum number suggested in HCI text (Adams & Cox, 2008; Preece et al., 2015) and I doubled the number for the large group.

The participants were recruited via StreetLife¹⁴, a local digital community. Participants did not have to have any technology experience. Table 3.1 summarizes the participants’

gender, age, living arrangements, educational level and current employment status.

Table 3.1. Demographics of the participants

Characteristics: Large focus group Small focus group

Gender 3 women, 3 men 2 women, 1 man

Age 65 – 80 years 65 – 70 years

Mean age 75 years 68 years

Living arrangement All living with partner 1 living alone, 2 with partners Education level 3 secondary school,

1 Bachelors degree, 3 professional qualification

2 secondary school, 1 Bachelors degree

Employment status 1 working p/t, 5 retired All retired

14 https://www.streetlife.com

3.2.3 Materials and equipment

The discussion topics emerged from the literature about older adults, malnutrition and technology (Bhachu et al., 2008; Callen & Wells, 2003; Fan et al., 2012; Payette et al., 1995; Shahar et al., 2001). The discussion topics are listed in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Discussion topics for the focus groups Healthy Living

• Eating habits

• Healthy eating

• Drinking habits Technology

• Internet

Mobile Technology

• Smartphones and tablet computers

• Mobile apps

Each participant completed an informed consent form (see Appendix 2) and a background information questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of three sections:

1) about the technologies they use; which asked them about the brand / model, how long they have been using it, how often they use per week if they are still using it and reasons if they no longer using it

2) about their attitudes to mobile phone and computer technology; which asked them reasons for which technologies that they used find most useful and fun, and how comfort and expert feel they were in using the technologies (on a five point scales) 3) about their personal information; which asked for the marital status, living

arrangement, highest education, employment status, age and gender.

See Appendix 3 for the copy of the questionnaire.

They also received an A4-sized food pyramid diagram and the NHS Eatwell Guide¹⁵ to stimulate the discussion (see Appendices 4 and 5 respectively).

15 http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Documents/The-Eatwell-Guide-2016.pdf

The focus groups were audio recorded using the Voice Memos application on two iPhone 5s, running on iOS 8. One iPhone acted as a backup for the sessions.

3.2.4 Procedure

The focus groups were audio recorded and were conducted in a meeting room in the Department of Computer Science. Participants sat around a large round table. Tea, coffee and biscuits were available throughout the session.

Both focus groups were moderated by Dr. Blaithin Gallagher, an experienced focus group moderator and researcher on the problems of older people. I was the assistant moderator.

The moderator started by introducing the objectives and procedures of the focus group.

Participants were asked to read and sign the informed consent form and complete the background information questionnaire. The moderator then guided the participants through the discussion topics on their concerns about eating, and drinking. Participants also discussed their use of and attitudes towards technology, including mobile technology.

At the end of the discussion, the moderator summarised the key points mentioned by the participants during the discussion and debriefed them. Participants were offered a Mark &

Spencer gift voucher worth £25 to thank them for their time and efforts. The time taken for the large focus group was 97 minutes and for the small focus group was 109 minutes.

3.2.5 Data Analysis

The audio recordings were transferred to Express Scribe¹⁶ software for transcription, organization, and analysis of the data. The audio recordings were transcribed using Microsoft Word within 72 hours of the actual recordings.

Content analysis (Krippendorff, 2012) was conducted using the transcripts, identifying topics related to older adults’ attitudes and concerns about healthy living and technologies, including mobile technologies.

16 http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/

This was achieved following typical content analysis methods. Initially I listened and re-listened to the audio recordings to ensure that I have a broad overview of what the discussion was about. I compared the audio recordings to my handwritten notes taken during the focus group if I was confused on any part of the discussion. Next, I transcribed the recordings. My supervisor helped me to transcribe the recordings in cases that I could not understand the word or phrases.

To avoid losing any information related to the interest of this study, I repeated the transcription process twice. To ensure I adapt and understand the information told by the participants, I reviewed the transcriptions many times line by line.

Then, I analyzed using an open coding technique (Mora et al., 2012) until appropriate topics were found. To establish inter-coder reliability of the categorization, a second coder went through all of the topics and any disagreements were resolved.