Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice J Adv Nurs . 2025 Aug 13;82(5):5457–5466. doi: 10.1111/jan.70133 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search The Power of a Ricoeur‐Inspired Phenomenological‐Hermeneutic Approach to Focus Group Interviews Charlotte Simonÿ Charlotte Simonÿ 1 The Research and Implementation Unit PROgrez, Næstved, Slagelse, and Ringsted Hospitals, Slagelse, Denmark 2 Health Faculty, The Institute of Regional Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Find articles by Charlotte Simonÿ 1, 2, ✉ , Janne Brammer Damsgaard Janne Brammer Damsgaard 3 Department of Public Health, Nursing, Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Find articles by Janne Brammer Damsgaard 3 , Kirsten Johansen Kirsten Johansen 4 Department of Forensic Mental Health Services, Middelfart, Denmark 5 Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Find articles by Kirsten Johansen 4, 5 , Bettina Trettin Bettina Trettin 5 Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark 6 Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark Find articles by Bettina Trettin 5, 6 , Malene Beck Malene Beck 2 Health Faculty, The Institute of Regional Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark 7 Research Unit WeDoCare, Children and Adolescent Unit, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Region Zealand, Denmark 8 Institute of Technology and People, Roskilde University Center, Roskilde, Denmark Find articles by Malene Beck 2, 7, 8 , Pia Dreyer Pia Dreyer 9 Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark 10 Department of Public Health, Section of Nursing Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark Find articles by Pia Dreyer 9, 10 , Trine Grønbek Hamborg Trine Grønbek Hamborg 1 The Research and Implementation Unit PROgrez, Næstved, Slagelse, and Ringsted Hospitals, Slagelse, Denmark 2 Health Faculty, The Institute of Regional Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Find articles by Trine Grønbek Hamborg 1, 2 , Hanne Agerskov Hanne Agerskov 11 Department of Nephrology, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, Denmark 12 Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Find articles by Hanne Agerskov 11, 12 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 The Research and Implementation Unit PROgrez, Næstved, Slagelse, and Ringsted Hospitals, Slagelse, Denmark 2 Health Faculty, The Institute of Regional Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark 3 Department of Public Health, Nursing, Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark 4 Department of Forensic Mental Health Services, Middelfart, Denmark 5 Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark 6 Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark 7 Research Unit WeDoCare, Children and Adolescent Unit, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Region Zealand, Denmark 8 Institute of Technology and People, Roskilde University Center, Roskilde, Denmark 9 Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark 10 Department of Public Health, Section of Nursing Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark 11 Department of Nephrology, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, Denmark 12 Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark * Correspondence: Charlotte Simonÿ ( [email protected] ) ✉ Corresponding author. Revised 2025 Jul 9; Received 2025 May 6; Accepted 2025 Jul 23; Issue date 2026 May. © 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13069247 PMID: 40801446 ABSTRACT Aim To justify the use of focus group interviews with patients and healthcare professionals within a phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach inspired by the theory of the French philosopher Paul Gustave Ricoeur. Design and Methods Methodological guidance and discussion grounded in Ricoeur's theory on narrative, dialogue, threefold mimesis and interpretation. Results This phenomenological‐hermeneutical approach to focus group interviews yields significant, in‐depth understandings of lived experiences from both patients and healthcare professionals. Conclusions Ricoeur‐inspired phenomenological‐hermeneutical focus group interviews with patients and healthcare professionals offer a promising approach for exploring and generating new, valuable insights into the complexities of clinical nursing practice. Thus, this paper argues for an integration of focus group interviews and a phenomenological‐hermeneutical approach within nursing science. Implications for the Profession The approach has significant implications for nursing practice. By incorporating Ricoeur‐inspired dialogue‐based collective voices of patients and healthcare professionals in focus group interviews, nursing practices can be refined, leading to improved patient care and more effective clinical interventions. Thus, this approach advocates for a broader adoption of Ricoeur‐inspired focus group interviews in nursing research and in health research in general to enhance the understanding and development of clinical models. Reporting Method No available EQUATOR guidelines were applicable to this methodological paper, as no new data were created or analysed. Patient or Public Contribution As this is a methodological paper, no new patient or public contributions are included. Keywords: dialogue, focus group interview, methodology, methods, narrative, nursing, nursing research, Paul Ricoeur, phenomenological‐hermeneutic research, threefold mimesis Summary. In nursing research, focus group interviews have proven to be a valuable resource. This paper adds a new powerful phenomenological‐hermeneutical approach to the field. The paper provides clear guidance on the approach and argues how it can yield crucial insights. The paper intends to guide researchers within healthcare research to include the collective voices of patients and healthcare professionals in developing new models for clinical practice. 1. Introduction This paper aims to elucidate the potential benefits and practicalities of incorporating focus group interviews (FGIs) involving patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) within a phenomenological‐hermeneutical research approach. We will provide methodological and methodic justifications, supported by illustrative examples drawn from our research, based on the philosophical insights of the French philosopher Paul Gustave Ricoeur, particularly his perspectives on narrative, dialogue, mimesis and interpretation. This knowledge will equip the reader with scientific arguments and the necessary tools to appreciate these research methods. 2. Background FGIs were initially derived from social science in the 1920s and applied in market research to explore and identify consumer preferences (Parker and Tritter 2006 ). FGIs have been a qualitative research method in social science for decades. This method can capture shared reflections of experiences, perceptions and beliefs among people, thus leading to a rich understanding of life experiences in a specific context (Freeman 2006 ). In qualitative health research, especially in nursing, FGIs have been widely used to explore the experiences, perspectives and opinions of patients and HCPs (Tausch and Menold 2016 ; Wilkinson 1998 ). Among many contributions to philosophy, Ricoeur is considered a bridge builder between phenomenology and hermeneutics. While asseverating phenomenology as the indispensable presupposition of hermeneutics in 1975, Ricoeur claims that hermeneutics is necessary to appropriate the human experienced (and narrated) meaning (Ricoeur 1975 ). In 1976, he published the interpretation theory subtitled: ‘Discourse and the surplus of meaning’, in which he relates narration, language, reflection, understanding and the self in a way that allows the interpreter to appropriate new insight into lived experiences and meaning (Ricoeur 1976 ). Later, he emphasised the power of narratives in the light of his exposition of the threefold mimesis in the work of ‘Time and Narrative’ (Ricoeur 1984 ). In 1992, he published the English version of ‘Soi‐méme comme un autre’ (from 1990) ‘Oneself as Another’, an important contribution to narratives, as he launched narrative identity and highlighted the importance of dialogue in narrative construction (Ricoeur 1992 ). On this basis, we refer to Ricoeur's philosophy as phenomenological‐hermeneutical. Much of the existing literature on FGI methods concerns planning, organisation and data analysis. However, valuable points for research methods, such as those based on phenomenological approaches, exist (Bradbury‐Jones et al. 2009 ; Halling et al. 1994 ). Nevertheless, few studies have addressed the underlying epistemological assumptions within a phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach, a topic we consider essential to explore in greater depth. Furthermore, there is a significant gap in the literature concerning the reasons and methods for grounding FGIs in research within a phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach. This paper addresses this gap by justifying the use of focus group interviews with patients and healthcare professionals within a phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach inspired by the theory of Ricoeur. First, we examine Ricoeur's ideas about narratives, dialogue, and mimesis and relate them to FGIs. We demonstrate how FGIs can facilitate dialogue where interviewees' perspectives and interpretations are encouraged to challenge and enrich each other's understanding. Next, we propose how to interpret FGIs through the lens of Ricoeur's description of interpretation. Finally, we explore and discuss how FGIs conducted with a phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach influenced by Ricoeur's philosophy can enhance nursing practice and research by amplifying the collective voices of patients and HCPs. We draw on previously conducted studies, which have been inspired by Ricoeur's phenomenological‐hermeneutical philosophy; however, they have not been in‐depth described as we elaborate in the following. Our discussion is supported by our own research experiences and those of other nursing and FGI researchers. The scope of this paper concerns the methodological level, guided specifically by Ricoeur's phenomenological‐hermeneutic philosophy. Therefore, a comprehensive philosophical description of phenomenology and hermeneutics is beyond the scope of this work. 2.1. Ethical Considerations The data utilised in this paper are all references from published studies. 3. Focus Group Interviews Within a Ricoeur‐Inspired Phenomenological‐Hermeneutical Approach 3.1. The Advantageous Nature of Focus Group Interviews Different methodological ways of ‘how to’ conduct (focus) group interviews and (focus) group discussions have, among others, been led by Morgan ( 1996 , 1997 , 2010 ), Halkier ( 2009 , 2020 ) and Barbour ( 2018 ). Depending on researchers' disciplinary backgrounds and assumptions, FGIs have been conducted for various purposes (Barbour 2018 ). Overall, it can be argued that focus group interviews are research methods in which a group of people sharing a common interest or characteristic are brought together to discuss and share their opinions and perspectives on a specific topic. The strength of FGIs is that they offer a broad understanding of how a specific group perceives a topic (Morgan 1996 , 1997 , 2010 ). The method provides an opportunity to gain insight into interviewees' attitudes, values and perceptions (Barbour 2018 ; Halkier 2009 , 2020 ). According to Halling et al. ( 1994 ), ‘the phenomenon being researched comes alive within the group’ (p. 112). A group allows interviewees to listen to each other's stories and add their perspectives and insights as each story unfolds (Sorrell and Redmond 1995 ). According to Jaspers ( 1968 ), a group setting means interviewees are given time for reflection while others speak before adding their perspectives. He argues that participants in FGIs validate the points raised as ‘shared’ experiences (Jaspers 1968 ) and is supported by Côté‐Arsenault and Morrison‐Beedy ( 2001 ). The above‐mentioned advantages of FGIs can be even more relevant in nursing research in light of Ricoeur's phenomenological‐hermeneutic philosophy. Anchoring the research approach in the threefold mimesis and the philosophy of dialogue, as depicted by Ricoeur ( 1984 , 1992 ), can be of paramount importance in healthcare. 3.2. Ricoeur's Philosophy on Narratives and Dialogues Ricoeur argued in his interpretation theory (Ricoeur 1976 ) that language is not merely a system; it articulates lived experiences and thus mediates a movement of understanding among people. Narratives, which Ricoeur conceptualises as unfolding experiences, are valuable because they form our lives and identities—we live our lives in quest of narrative. Ricoeur posits that retelling an event brings the past into the present and shapes the future. Through language, we can establish and understand processual contexts. The presence and act of speaking and listening constitute language as a form of communication. Narrating a story is always about ‘something’ that moves from a speaker to one or more listeners. ‘Something’ is transferred from one sphere of life to another. This ‘something’ is not the experience as it was experienced, but its meaning (Ricoeur 1976 ). In ‘Oneself as Another’ (Ricoeur 1992 ), Ricoeur argues that we understand ourselves through the stories we tell about our lives. These stories are not static but evolve through our interactions with others. Through dialogue with others, we reflect on and revise our narratives. This happens because we are confronted with others' perspectives and interpretations, which can challenge and enrich our understanding (Ricoeur 1992 ). In qualitative nursing research, narration, interaction and exchange of viewpoints are valuable when exploring people's experiences, perceptions and the intention of their actions. Narratives obtained through FGIs can, as we will now argue, reveal lived experiences in a remarkably nuanced and prosperous manner. An example could be HCPs' perceptions of patients' experiences and the care they provide. Thus, through narratives, it becomes possible to explore experiences in depth and reveal knowledge of HCPs being‐in‐the‐world. This can be understood in the light of Ricoeur's philosophy of mimesis, which we will now argue in favour of in relation to FGIs. 3.3. Three Figurations of Emplotment Articulation in Ricoeur‐Inspired Focus Group Interviews Ricoeur comprehensively discusses the concept of threefold mimesis in his work ‘Time and Narrative’. He argues that through the process of threefold mimesis, the power of the ‘poetic language’ reveals a plot, leading to new action. Ricoeur favours using the term emplotment to highlight the mediating nature of a narrative (Ricoeur 1984 ). The threefold mimesis consists of moments of articulation, spanning from a socio‐historical past (mimesis I) to the socio‐historical future (mimesis III), with an intermediary mediating ‘poetic composition’ (mimesis II) in between (Ricoeur 1984 ). As illustrated in Figure 1 , conducting phenomenological‐hermeneutical FGIs can be viewed as a threefold articulation. FIGURE 1. Open in a new tab The three figurations of emplotment articulation in Ricoeur‐inspired phenomenological‐hermeneutical focus group interview research. The three moments of articulation are important for informing nursing through lived experiences from groups of healthcare professionals and patients. Mimesis I (Prefiguration): This is the moment where the world is pre‐understood. It involves the structures and rules of experience, such as time, action and characters. Mimesis II (Configuration): This is the act of emplotment, the moment where a coherent collective narrative is created during FGI. Mimesis III (Refiguration): This is the interpretation or appropriation stage. The moment where the world of the text and the world of the reader meet, and the narrative influences the reader's understanding of the world (Ricoeur 1984 ). Mimesis I (Prefiguration) is from where the world is pre‐understood before any narrative is told. It forms the basis of the emplotment. Ricoeur explains that it involves the experience of systems, their characters, semantics, symbols and temporality (Ricoeur 1984 ). In this light, researchers must recruit patients and HCPs with relevant experience in the phenomenon under study. Mimesis II (Configuration) is the act of emplotment, where a narrative is constructed, labelled by Ricoeur as ‘poetic composition’. The events are selected and organised into a coherent and followable story (Ricoeur 1984 ). The crux of a proper FGI study lies within the researchers' capacity to shape dialogue that facilitates detailed poetic descriptions of the phenomenon among the interviewees. This process can take advantage of the potential of rich information from lived experiences that Ricoeur emphasises by dialogue (Ricoeur 1992 ). We will later return to the task of conducting such FGIs. Mimesis III (Refiguration) includes the interpretation of the emplotment (Ricoeur 1984 ). The world of the narrative from the FGI and the world of the researchers meet. Hence, researchers can gain a new understanding of what is experienced. Such new insight can influence nursing practice. We revisit this essential point in phenomenological‐hermeneutic studies with a deeper explanation of how to interpret FGIs later. 3.4. Facilitating Ricoeur‐Inspired Dialogue in Focus Group Interviews: A Cultivating Process Ricoeur's ( 1984 ) description of the first and second mimesis opens the way for viewing FGIs as the platform in which interviewees with preunderstandings of the phenomenon under study are brought together to provide insight while using their own words. To conduct focus group interviews that foster a Ricoeur‐inspired dialogue, we recommend that researchers approach the process as a cultivating endeavour. This involves creating an environment where interviewees feel respected, heard, and encouraged to share and narrate their experiences. The following steps outline a frame for achieving this: Establishing a hermeneutic environment: Researchers should emphasise the interpretative nature of the dialogue, encouraging interviewees to share their experiences, perspectives and understandings. This involves being open to multiple interpretations and recognising the provisional nature of understanding (Ricoeur 1976 , 1984 ). Encouraging narrative sharing: Interviewees should be invited to share their individual stories and experiences. This allows for a deeper connection and understanding among the group members (Ricoeur 1992 ). Promoting ethical engagement: The dialogue should be grounded in ethical principles, where respect for each interviewee's viewpoint is paramount. Researchers should foster an atmosphere of mutual respect and active listening, ensuring that all voices are valued (Ricoeur 1992 ). Embracing ambiguity and complexity: Researchers should acknowledge and embrace the inherent ambiguity and complexity in human experiences and communication. This involves being patient and open to the often diverse and conflicting perspectives that may arise during the dialogue (Ricoeur 1984 , 1991 , 1992 ). By adopting these principles, researchers can create a focus group environment that not only gathers valuable data but also enriches the interviewees' understanding and fosters a meaningful and respectful dialogue. We argue that such group dialogues can be cultivated to create a collective voice among various FGI interviewees through the lens of Ricoeur's thinking. Thus, our examples below show how we encouraged dialogues about the phenomenon under study. All FGIs were cultivated with the inclusion of a semi‐structured interview guide. This semi‐structuring does not fundamentally align with phenomenology, which is more open and exploratory, as phenomenology seeks to allow experiences to emerge without predefined frameworks or thematic constraints. However, it was solely employed to structure conversations around topics that were deemed interesting and relevant for gaining knowledge and insight, ensuring that key themes were addressed while still allowing space for participants' lived experiences to unfold naturally. 3.4.1. A Mealtime Intervention at a Hospital Beck et al.'s study explored HCPs' engagement with a mealtime intervention (Beck et al. 2017 ), drawing inspiration from Halkier's methods (Halkier 2020 ). To establish a hermeneutic environment, the FGI sessions were run as a communal space where interviewees collaboratively delved into the intricacies of their roles in the changing clinical environment. The HCPs, consisting of nurses and other care providers, were encouraged to share their narratives, shedding light on how they navigated the complexities of altering mealtime practices based on the principles of the intervention. This introspection allowed the interviewees to choose their own words, providing authenticity and depth to their expressions. In these dialogues, interviewees illuminated the practical pathways through which the intervention impacted clinical practice and explored their profound perceptions of being‐in‐the‐world as HCPs implementing a clinical intervention. Ethical engagement was promoted by cultivating an atmosphere of mutual respect and, thus, space for individual narratives. The researchers embraced ambiguity and complexity by continuous openness to what was narrated. They facilitated dialogue when narrations reflected diverse perspectives. While keeping a respectful tone, they withheld discussions to unfold diverse perspectives. Hereby, the experiences of working in the ward while changing clinical mealtime practices were described with nuances and new interpretations as they occurred during the FGIs (Beck et al. 2017 ). 3.4.2. Improving the Patient Pathway for People With Psoriasis Trettin et al. investigated HCP's experiences and perspectives on the care and treatment of patients with psoriasis. To establish a hermeneutic environment, the cultivator addressed the importance of interaction in the FGIs at the very beginning of the FGIs. She highlighted the strengths of interpersonal dynamics to create room for ambiguity and complexity. Next, the cultivator introduced the interviewees, who were to discuss the themes presented with each other. This promoted ethical engagement and narrative sharing. Thus, interviewees were allowed and encouraged to comment on each other's experiences and perspectives, which paved the way for dialogues. Furthermore, interviewees were encouraged to pay attention to the less active interviewees and to invite them into the discussion. Moreover, interviewees were asked to individually write down their experiences of the phenomenon of interest (themes were presented) prior to each round of discussion. This allowed the interviewees to share and listen to stories and make room for them to prompt each other and dynamically unfold new perspectives. The interviewees comprised nurses and physicians in mixed groups, thus creating group‐level data. The intention was to maximise the exploration of various perspectives in clinical practice. According to Kitzinger, colleagues can relate to each other's comments about incidents in their shared lives (Kitzinger 1994 ). 3.4.3. A Cross‐Sectoral Telerehabilitation Intervention for People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Simonÿ et al. investigated the lived experiences of the work of interdisciplinary teams in a tele‐based, cross‐sectoral rehabilitation intervention for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease titled > C ☺ P D‐Life>> . The interviewees comprised rehabilitation teams of nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and a lifestyle coach in two mixed groups. A cultivator, an outsider to the project, led the two FGIs. At the very start of the FGIs, she promoted ethical engagement by making the interviewees agree to be open‐minded and respectful to each other. To establish a hermeneutic environment, she initiated the dialogues by asking each interviewee to tell their name and profession, describe their professional experience from the intervention, and explain what made a particular impression on them (Simonÿ et al. 2022 ). After this introductory round, all interviewees were encouraged to discuss the remarkable aspects of what they had just heard and were invited to give concrete examples to unfold their experiences in their own language. This was to encourage narrative sharing. To embrace ambiguity and complexity, the cultivator carefully invited dialogues to include the perspectives of all interviewees. This enabled her to investigate different views and expressions as the FGI went along. The cultivator wrapped up when she deemed that some of those areas of the experience were clearly explained. She did that by explaining in her own way what she had heard and asking the interviewees to comment on that. A short pause was held, and the FGIs were further cultivated by new open‐ended questions (Halkier 2009 , 2020 ). Meanwhile, interviewees were sometimes asked to finalise sentences already begun but not completed about the intervention brought to the table (Simonÿ et al. 2022 ). The cultivator strived for dynamic dialogues that shaped dialectics between the various HCPs and their lived experiences of working on the (Simonÿ et al. 2022 ) intervention. These three examples reflect how interviewees brought their prefigurations to the dialogue and created shared configurations during FGIs. As cultivated in such a Ricoeur‐inspired frame, FGIs become a way to shape a dialogue‐based poetic composition given by what can be considered a collective narrative voice . 3.5. A Ricoeur‐Inspired Phenomenological‐Hermeneutical Interpretation of Poetic Compositions From FGIs Ricoeur's exposition of the third mimesis (Ricoeur 1984 ) guides us to view the last figuration of emplotment as possible to achieve for researchers through interpretation. Ricoeur emphasises that the appropriation of meaning articulated in a narrative is attainable for the interpreter by maintaining a distance, facilitated by the written text form (Dreyer and Pedersen 2009 ; Ricoeur 1973 ). This allows all FGI data to be synthesised into a single coherent narrative to delve into the experiences conveyed. According to Ricoeur, interpreting a text with narrations of lived experiences opens new insight into how the world is experienced (Ricoeur 1976 , 1984 ). We find it fruitful to follow a hermeneutical arch in what Ricoeur elaborates as a movement from a naïve understanding to a sophisticated understanding of what the text is about (Ricoeur 1976 ). This interpretive movement is a dialectic three‐levelled procedure, including Naïve reading, Structural analysis and Critical interpretation and discussion (Dreyer and Pedersen 2009 ; Ricoeur 1976 ; Simonÿ et al. 2018 ). As illustrated in Figure 2 , these stages guide researchers in a process of understanding, involving shifts between explanation and comprehension of the text (Ricoeur 1976 ). At the conclusive phase, researchers are expected to gain fresh insights into ‘how‐it‐is‐to‐be‐in‐the‐world’, appreciating the poetic power of the composition generated by the cultivator and the collective narrative voice from the interviewees in FGIs (Ricoeur 1976 , 1991 ). FIGURE 2. Open in a new tab A schematic illustration of the three‐level procedure of Ricoeur‐inspired phenomenological‐hermeneutic interpretation. The Ricoeur‐inspired interpretation includes dialectical movements between the initial naïve reading, the structural analysis and the critical interpretation and discussion. The interpretation follows a hermeneutical spiral and moves from a naïve to a sophisticated understanding (Dreyer and Pedersen 2009 ; Ricoeur 1976 ; Simonÿ et al. 2018 ). Thus, this reveals a new understanding, ready for action in practice. The Naïve reading involves meticulous, repetitive engagement with the entire text to discern what it is all about. Here, the researchers let the complete story speak to them. Researchers allow the story to resonate with them, remaining open to the narrative's essence. They make initial guesses of what the text speaks about to reach a first‐hand appropriation of the experience of the clinical practice phenomena under investigation. What emerges in front of the text and their questioning of the text guides the researchers in this reading process. The researchers write in their own words what the text reveals to them. Thus, they elaborate on their initial understanding of data. This step is essential in the analysis because the researchers open themselves to the world of the text described with genuine curiosity and open‐mindedness (Dreyer and Pedersen 2009 ; Ricoeur 1976 ; Simonÿ et al. 2018 ). The structural analysis implies that the researchers follow the text's tracks by closely reading and interpreting parts. They structure ‘what is said’ by units of meaning, and again, they give their own words to ‘what is being talked about’ in what we name units of significance (Simonÿ et al. 2018 , 2015 ). In the process, there is a dialectic movement where the researchers identify themes in which the units of significance serve to explain the findings (Dreyer and Pedersen 2009 ; Ricoeur 1976 ; Simonÿ et al. 2018 ). This level yields a more profound understanding than the naïve reading. Since FGI interviewees engage in a dialogue enabling a group‐based explanation of ‘being‐in‐the‐world’, findings must reflect this. Using quotes from individual interviewees is encouraged to illustrate the shared narrative voice, as demonstrated in our studies. Quotes benefit from contextual information reflecting the interview situation to align with the study's objectives (Grønkjær et al. 2011 ; Beck et al. 2017 ; Simonÿ et al. 2022 , 2023 ; Trettin, Danbjørg, et al. 2021 ; Trettin, Feldman, et al. 2021 ). See examples in Table 1 . This way of using quotes is crucial and needs careful consideration in studies taking the Ricoeur‐inspired phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach. TABLE 1. Examples of findings reflecting focus group dynamics. From the study: Raising a beautiful swan: a phenomenological‐hermeneutic interpretation of health professionals' experiences of participating in a mealtime intervention inspired by Protected Mealtimes A renewed view of the neurological patients In the interviews, the health professionals described how they considered Quiet Please an important event because the intervention made care more patient‐centred and their professional perceptions were sharpened. However, the interviews also revealed a tension between the health professionals. The interviews indicated that the nurses considered that groups within the staff had more authority than others in prioritising some tasks. This became clear when they repeatedly talked about how their colleagues had taken Quiet Please on, and they were glad that it had been respected. A nurse said: I think that the doctors have had to adjust some limits. Food is important for the patients. They (the doctors) have sometimes expressed that this is not their concern. I do not agree with that. Food is an important thing for people to thrive (FG2). The quotation illustrates that while the nurses considered mealtime as a primary element in the patients' ‘being’, they also considered the responsibility for the mealtimes to be their own. (Beck et al. 2017 ). From the study: Shaping better rehabilitation to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients An Open‐Minded and Focused Interdisciplinary Team Collaboration While working together in the empowerment‐based telerehabilitation, nurses and colleagues experienced breaking the usual siloed way of working and establishing a more interactive interprofessional approach. They considered it a challenging, transformative process that demanded courage and hard work. One physiotherapist said: ‘We were forced to be open‐minded in this’ (I 2). As clinicians, they needed to reconsider themselves, which meant they felt obligated to ‘step up’ facing their professional limitations and extend their clinical know‐how. It turned out to be an inherent part of the work to ‘engage and improve insight into what other professions' angles can contribute’ (I 2). They disclosed that they did and accordingly became encouraged to develop a new kind of collaborative teamwork. They compared their partnership to a ball game several times in both interviews. They illustrated that they came to view themselves as players who fought together, intending to win—in this case, winning meant ‘providing the best possible support to the patients so that they could manage better’ (I 2). As team players, they found it engaging to contribute their professional skills to achieve this goal. They disclosed how this team play caused a rise in the clinical standard compared to their usual practice, which a physiotherapist described in this way: ‘We took the patients to a far better level’ (I 2). …they described the usual rehabilitation practice as fragmented with poor coordination and communication, leaving the patients in limbo without sufficient support. Opposite to this, they considered their teamwork during > C ☺ P D‐Life>> to include positive interprofessional dynamics leading to excellent well‐coordinated rehabilitation support. While colleagues nodded in agreement, a nurse stated: ‘It was a great lesson for us. We have proven that clinical teamwork can make a huge difference in the life of a person’ (I 1) (Simonÿ et al. 2022 ). Open in a new tab Note: In these examples, the dynamics of the FGIs are shown to the reader, thus reflecting the shared narrative voice of the interviewees. Yet, the final appropriation level is not reached solely through structural analysis. In the critical interpretation and discussion , Ricoeur stresses the importance of critically oriented hermeneutics to attain profound comprehension of ‘being‐in‐the‐world’ derived from FGIs' shared narratives. Researchers must extend findings to broader contexts, scrutinising them in light of theories and supplementary research (Ricoeur 1976 ; Simonÿ et al. 2018 ). This transcends naïve readings, exploring themes from structural analysis and highlighting significant FGI findings. This advanced analysis culminates in the critical appropriation of the phenomena, leading to novel understandings of patients' and healthcare professionals' experiences in FGIs. At this stage, newfound insights can guide aligned actions or recommendations for clinical practice, as exemplified in Table 2 . TABLE 2. Examples of critical interpretation and discussions. From the study: Raising a beautiful swan: a phenomenological‐hermeneutic interpretation of health professionals' experiences of participating in a mealtime intervention inspired by Protected Mealtimes Our study showed the importance of nurses including the environmental factors when caring for patients with neurological diseases. The founder of modern nursing, Florence Nightingale (Nightingale 1995 ), emphasised the importance of the environment when providing mealtime care and advocated for focusing on the aesthetic elements beyond just the meal on the plate to create an appealing environment. Perry et al. ( 2013 ) emphasise that Kirkevold ( 1997 ) describes a specific therapeutic dimension in stroke nursing in which there are an interpretive function focused on nurses helping patients and their relatives understand the ramifications of a stroke, and a counselling function focused on the provision of emotional support. This is related to the argument of Kumlien and Axelsson ( 2002 ), who argue that the recognition of the provision of emotional support for eating difficulties is crucial, since it regards eating as a psychosocial function and enhances quality of life post‐stroke (Medin et al. 2010 ; Perry et al. 2013 ). Taking this into account, providing the intervention Quiet Please, Protected Mealtime care is not only a matter of stopping all non‐acute activity and providing patients the opportunity to eat without interruptions but also a way of getting back to basic nursing as it was defined by Nightingale and providing specific nurse‐led supportive care to patients hospitalised with a neurological disease (Kirkevold 1997 ; Van Ort and Phillips 1995 ). From the study: Shaping better rehabilitation to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients Doubled Layered Collaboration in the Telerehabilitation Intervention In C☺P D‐Life>> , clinicians and patients can collaborate closely on patients' lived challenges during rehabilitation. This collaboration draws upon a growing relationship between the parties. While delivering the intervention nurses and colleagues perceive themselves as team players who collaborate closely to address patients' individual needs, leading to considerably better support. These findings are likely to reflect what the American professor of management, Gittell ( 2009 ) and Gittell et al. ( 2013 ), describes as relational coordination. Gittell ( 2009 ) argues that relational coordination includes frequent, timely, accurate, and problem‐solving communication, drawing on shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect‐relations. She highlights that relational coordination accentuates a high healthcare quality and efficiency by enabling ‘participants to manage their task interdependencies with fewer dropped balls and less wasted effort’ (Gittell et al. 2013 , 201). This is supported in another study of this intervention showing how the participating patients find C☺P D‐Life>> improving access to broad healthcare support that leads to raised independence, functioning and wellbeing in their daily life (Simonÿ et al. 2022 ). Based on the coherent findings regarding the C☺P D‐Life>> intervention, we argue that this kind of empowerment‐based interactive telerehabilitation facilitates relational coordination, leading to increased clinical aid. Nurses and colleagues achieve a more nuanced insight into the varied facets of daily living with COPD than practice in usual COPD rehabilitation, through a unique patient‐professional interactive alliance. The novel factor is that the clinical team can support COPD patients in managing individual challenges and thereby solve problems through close collaboration on shared goals (Gittell et al. 2013 ). Open in a new tab Note: The examples are from the discussions in the published papers from the studies (Beck et al. 2017 ; Simonÿ et al. 2022 ). They show how the fulfilled appropriation is described with the inclusion of theories and other research. 4. Discussion This paper demonstrates how FGIs conducted within a Ricoeur‐inspired phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach generate significantly nuanced data material. It provides a strength that lies in allowing multiple interviewees to create a shared narrative, or, in Ricoeur's terms, a poetic composition. By cultivating dialogues that enable interviewees to challenge and enrich their preunderstandings while they shape a narrative together, nuanced data of lived experiences is generated. This requires establishing a hermeneutic environment, encouraging narrative sharing, promoting ethical engagement and embracing ambiguity and complexity. The benefit is that through language, lived experiences are illuminated and reflected in the group, thereby shaping the construction of the narrative—the act of emplotment in the poetic composition. With this overall point, we wish to offer epistemological underpinnings for selecting FGIs for data generation. This is important to avoid substandard research practices and outcomes, as argued by Coule ( 2013 ). Using a critical and structured approach (Carter and Little 2007 ), we propose a method for conducting FGIs that engages with epistemological threads (theories of knowledge) to justify and evaluate the knowledge derived from this Ricoeur‐inspired phenomenological‐hermeneutical approach. The approach we argue for provides vital insight while developing and appraising new models for clinical practice within nursing. It is our understanding that many researchers in nursing have conducted important studies inspired by Ricoeur's theory with a significant impact on clinical practice (Bäckström et al. 2010 ; Hesselvig et al. 2020 ; Missel and Birkelund 2011 ; Tarabeih and Bokek‐Cohen 2020 ). However, previous studies have predominantly used the methods of individual interviews and/or participant observation (Simonÿ et al. 2018 ). We have argued here for the adoption of a Ricoeur‐inspired phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach for FGIs in healthcare research, addressing a key limitation in previous work. By using the advantage of Ricoeur‐inspired FGIs in nursing research, we thereby argue that patients and HCPs are given a stronger voice. We must be aware that there is a growing focus on developing new models for clinical practice, not only in nursing but also in general healthcare research, with an emphasis on including users' perspectives. FGIs are often used in, for example, studies that adhere to the new Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions (Skivington et al. 2021 ) or in participatory design studies (Simonsen and Robertson 2013 ). Our suggested Ricoeur‐inspired FGI approach is a novel way to meet this query, because the lived experiences of patients and HCPs become possible to grasp in a powerful way (Beck et al. 2017 ; Simonÿ et al. 2022 , 2023 ; Trettin, Danbjørg, et al. 2021 ; Trettin, Feldman, et al. 2021 ). When conducting our proposed Ricoeur‐inspired FGI cultivation, the researchers must also be capable of dealing with two types of participants: those who are dominant and those who are reluctant to participate (Barbour 2018 ). As Krueger and Richards argue, there is a need to encourage the voice of ‘quiet respondents’ while tactfully managing the ‘dominant talkers’ (Krueger 1995 ). This harmonises well with the basic idea of conducting FGIs in the Ricoeur‐inspired way. Drawing on Ricoeur's idea that identity is narratively constructed and that dialogue is crucial for the narrative construction (Ricoeur 1992 ), the FGIs present a significant strength to allow interviewees to disclose various and even contradictory experiences of ‘being‐in‐the‐world’. Additionally, it may be necessary and recommended to conduct a series of FGIs within a single study (Brinkmann 2014 ; Halkier 2020 ). In our experience, cultivating Ricoeur‐inspired FGIs calls for a trustworthiness and hermeneutic milieu that is most likely to succeed in small groups. We propose a thorough three‐levelled interpretation that draws from Ricoeur's theory of narrative and interpretation. Through naïve reading, structural analysis and critical interpretation and discussion, researchers can appropriate a new way of being‐in‐the‐world (Dreyer and Pedersen 2009 ; Pedersen 2005 ; Ricoeur 1976 ; Simonÿ et al. 2018 ). This Ricoeur‐inspired interpretation is suitable for revealing knowledge about the varied experiences and perspectives from the shared narrative voices in FGIs. We showed that the remarkable strength is that the data includes shared voices with several nuances on the phenomenon under study. From the naïve reading and the structural analysis, it is possible to achieve a sophisticated understanding (Ricoeur 1976 ) of how it‐is‐to‐be‐in‐the‐world from those nuanced and rich narratives. Moreover, the critical interpretation made within the Ricoeur‐inspired interpretation offers a unique applicability from the nuanced and rich narratives shared within a FGI grounded in a Ricoeur‐inspired approach. Critical interpretation of findings (from naïve reading and structural analysis), including appropriate theories and research, provides valuable results highly useful for refining clinical practice. According to Barbour ( 2018 ), researchers should not add FGIs to their methodological toolkit without considering their fit with the study's dominant paradigm (the design). To our knowledge, researchers have included phenomenological‐hermeneutic‐inspired FGIs without clear threads and arguments for the chosen paradigm. With this in mind, we hope to have offered some insight for researchers considering the use of FGIs within a phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach in nursing and other healthcare research practices. 5. Conclusions The narrative interplay between interviewees in FGIs catalyses the co‐creation of meaning, enriching the depth of insights in a research field. This collaborative sense‐making process aligns with the essence of intertwined phenomenology and hermeneutics, emphasising the importance of collective exploration and interpretation. Ricoeur's emphasis on narratives as a conduit for understanding ‘being‐in‐the‐world’ finds resonance in the shared narrative environment of FGIs that we argue for. This inclusive approach acknowledges the multifaceted nature of lived experiences and allows for the emergence of collective narratives that resonate with the shared context of the interviewees. As researchers engage with the interpretative richness cultivated by FGIs, they enter a dialogical process that mirrors Ricoeur's notion of language mediating movement among individuals. The act of storytelling within the group setting becomes a dynamic exchange, shaping the past into the present and influencing future understandings. This cyclic process of mimesis, as conceptualised by Ricoeur, underscores the transformative potential embedded in the narratives co‐constructed during FGIs. In essence, within a phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach based on Ricoeur's theoretical underpinnings, FGIs unravel the intricacies of lived experiences and empower interviewees to actively contribute to creating a collective poetic composition. This poesis, far from being a mere compilation of individual accounts, is carried by a collective voice that resonates with the depth and richness of the human experience within healthcare contexts. Ethics Statement We adhere to the Declaration of Helsinki in our studies, which this article reports. No new data were generated for this article, so obtaining new consent from participants was unnecessary. However, we would like to highlight that all studies with human beings should meet ethical standards according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Also, we address the recommendations for nursing ethics in Nordic countries (Etiske retningslinier for sygeplejeforskning i Norden (2003) [Ethical Guidelines for Nursing Research in the Nordic Countries], Published by The Danish Association for Nurses, Copenhagen). Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Acknowledgements We owe the patients and healthcare professionals who participated in our research the deepest thanks. Without their open‐hearted willingness to share their experiences, we would not have been able to learn about and reflect on the potential of focus group interviews. For language revision, we thank Jørgen Refshauge. Simonÿ, C. , Damsgaard J. B., Johansen K., et al. 2026. “The Power of a Ricoeur‐Inspired Phenomenological‐Hermeneutic Approach to Focus Group Interviews.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 82, no. 5: 5457–5466. 10.1111/jan.70133. Funding: Charlotte Simonÿ was supported by a grant from Næstved, Slagelse, and Ringsted Hospitals (Grant number A1377) for the Life in Movement work. Data Availability Statement The authors have nothing to report. References Bäckström, B. , Asplund K., and Sundin K.. 2010. “The Meaning of Middle‐Aged Female Spouses Lived Experience of the Relationship With a Partner Who Has Suffered a Stroke, During the First Year Post Discharge.” Nursing Inquiry 17, no. 3: 257–268. 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2010.00490.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Barbour, R.
2018. “Doing Focus Groups.” In The Sage Qualitative Research Kit, edited by Flick U., 2nd ed. Sage. [ Google Scholar ] Beck, M. , Martinsen B., Birkelund R., and Poulsen I.. 2017. “Raising a Beautiful Swan: A Phenomenological‐Hermeneutic Interpretation of Health Professionals' Experiences of Participating in a Mealtime Intervention Inspired by Protected Mealtimes.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well‐Being 12, no. 1: 1360699. 10.1080/17482631.2017.1360699. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Bradbury‐Jones, C. , Sambrook S., and Irvine F.. 2009. “The Phenomenological Focus Group: An Oxymoron?” Journal of Advanced Nursing 65, no. 3: 663–671. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04922.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Brinkmann, S.
2014. InterViews—Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 3rd ed. Sage Publications Inc. [ Google Scholar ] Carter, S. M. , and Little M.. 2007. “Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action: Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Health Research 17, no. 10: 1316–1328. 10.1177/1049732307306927. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Côté‐Arsenault, D. , and Morrison‐Beedy D.. 2001. “Womens Voices Reflecting Changed Expectations for Pregnancy After Perinatal Loss.” Journal of Nursing Scholarship 33, no. 3: 239–244. 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00239.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Coule, T.
2013. “Theories of Knowledge and Focus Groups in Organization and Management Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management 8, no. 2: 148–162. 10.1108/QROM-09-2011-1006. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Dreyer, P. S. , and Pedersen B. D.. 2009. “Distanciation in Ricoeur's Theory of Interpretation: Narrations in a Study of Life Experiences of Living With Chronic Illness and Home Mechanical Ventilation.” Nursing Inquiry 16, no. 1: 64–73. 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2009.00433.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Freeman, T.
2006. “‘Best Practice’ in Focus Group Research: Making Sense of Different Views.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 56, no. 5: 491–497. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04043.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Gittell, J. H.
2009. High Performance Healthcare – Using the Power of Relationships to Achieve Quality, Efficiency and Resilience. 1st ed. Mc Graw Hill. [ Google Scholar ] Gittell, J. H. , Godfrey M., and Thistlethwaite J.. 2013. “Interprofessional Collaborative Practice and Relational Coordination: Improving Healthcare Through Relationships.” Journal of Interprofessional Care 27, no. 3: 210–213. 10.3109/13561820.2012.730564. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Grønkjær, M. , Curtis T., De Crespigny C., and Delmar C.. 2011. “Analysing Group Interaction in Focus Group Research: Impact on Content and the Role of the Moderator.” Qualitative Studies 2, no. 1: 16–30. 10.7146/qs.v2i1.4273. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Halkier, B.
2009. Fokusgrupper [Focus Groups]. 2nd ed. Forlaget Samfundslitteratur. [ Google Scholar ] Halkier, B.
2020. “Fokusgrupper [Focus Groups].” In Kvalitative Metoder. En Grundbog [Qualitative Methods. A Basic Book], edited by Brinkmann S. and Tanggaard L., 3rd ed., 167–184. Hans Reitzels Forlag. [ Google Scholar ] Halling, S. , Kunz G., and Rowe J. O.. 1994. “The Contributions of Dialogical Psychology to Phenomenological Research.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 34, no. 1: 109–131. 10.1177/00221678940341007. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Hesselvig, L. T. , Beck M., and Simonÿ C.. 2020. “Sheltering Under a Shield of Love—A Phenomenological–Hermeneutic Study of Relatives' Experiences in an Acute Neurological Ward.” Nursing Open 7, no. 4: 1093–1100. 10.1002/nop2.481. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Jaspers, K.
1968. “The Phenomenological Approach in Psychopathology.” British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science 114, no. 516: 1313–1323. 10.1192/bjp.114.516.1313. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kirkevold, M.
1997. “The Role of Nursing in the Rehabilitation of Acute Stroke Patients: Toward a Unified Theoretical Perspective.” ANS. Advances in Nursing Science 19: 55–64. 10.1097/00012272-199706000-00005. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kitzinger, J.
1994. “The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction Between Research Participants.” Sociology of Health & Illness 16, no. 1: 103–121. 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Krueger, R. A.
1995. “The Future of Focus Groups.” Qualitative Health Research 5, no. 4: 524–530. 10.1177/104973239500500412. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kumlien, S. , and Axelsson K.. 2002. “Stroke Patients in Nursing Homes: Eating, Feeding, Nutrition and Related Care.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 11, no. 4: 498–509. 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2002.00636.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Medin, J. , Larson J., Von Arbin M., Wredling R., and Tham K.. 2010. “Elderly Persons' Experience and Management of Eating Situations 6 Months After Stroke.” Disability and Rehabilitation 32, no. 16: 1346–1353. 10.3109/09638280903514747. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Missel, M. , and Birkelund R.. 2011. “Living With Incurable Oesophageal cancer. A Phenomenological Hermeneutical Interpretation of Patient Stories.” European Journal of Oncology Nursing 15, no. 4: 296–301. 10.1016/j.ejon.2010.10.006. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Morgan, D. L.
1996. “Focus Groups.” Annual Review of Sociology 22, no. 1: 129–152. 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Morgan, D. L.
1997. “Focus Groups as Qualitative Research.” In The SAGE Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://uk.sagepub.com/en‐gb/eur/focus‐groups‐as‐qualitative‐research/book6162 . [ Google Scholar ] Morgan, D. L.
2010. “Reconsidering the Role of Interaction in Analyzing and Reporting Focus Groups.” Qualitative Health Research 20, no. 5: 718–722. 10.1177/1049732310364627. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Nightingale, F.
1995. Notes on Nursing (1. udgave ed.). Munksgaard. [ Google Scholar ] Parker, A. , and Tritter J.. 2006. “Focus Group Method and Methodology: Current Practice and Recent Debate.” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 29, no. 1: 23–37. 10.1080/01406720500537304. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Pedersen, B. D.
2005. “Sygeplejepraksis: Sprog & Erkendelse (Nursing Practice: Language and Cognition).” Vol. 3. PhD thesis, The Faculty of Health Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark. Perry, L. , Hamilton S., Williams J., and Jones S.. 2013. “Nursing Interventions for Improving Nutritional Status and Outcomes of Stroke Patients: Descriptive Reviews of Processes and Outcomes.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 10, no. 1: 17–40. 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00255.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ricoeur, P.
1973. “The Hermeneutical Function of Distanciation.” Philosophy Today 17, no. 2: 129. http://gateway.proquest.com.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk:2048/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88‐2004&res_dat=xri:pao:&rft_dat=xri:pao:article:5116‐1973‐017‐02‐000005 . [ Google Scholar ] Ricoeur, P.
1975. “Phenomenology and Hermeneutics. Source: Noûs.” Symposium Papers 9, no. 1: 85–102. [ Google Scholar ] Ricoeur, P.
1976. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. 5th ed. Texas Christian University Press. [ Google Scholar ] Ricoeur, P.
1984. Time and Narrative (Translated). University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ] Ricoeur, P.
1991. “Life in Quest of Narrative.” In On Paul Ricoeur, edited by Wood D., 20–33. Routledge. [ Google Scholar ] Ricoeur, P.
1992. Oneself as Another. University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ] Simonsen, J. , and Robertson T.. 2013. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge. [ Google Scholar ] Simonÿ, C. , Clausen B., Beck M., et al. 2023. “An Invigorating Journey Towards Better Function and Well‐Being: A Qualitative Study of Knee Osteoarthritis Patients' Experiences With an Online Exercise and Education Intervention.” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open 5, no. 3: 1–7. 10.1016/j.ocarto.2023.100384. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Simonÿ, C. , Neerup Andersen M., Hansen R. G., et al. 2022. “Shaping Better Rehabilitation to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: Experiences of Nurses and Colleagues With an Interdisciplinary Telerehabilitation Intervention.” Global Qualitative Nursing Research 9: 233339362211098. 10.1177/23333936221109890. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Simonÿ, C. P. , Pedersen B. D., Dreyer P., and Birkelund R.. 2015. “Dealing With Existential Anxiety in Exercise‐Based Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Phenomenological‐Hermeneutic Study of Patients' Lived Experiences.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 24, no. 17–18: 2581–2590. 10.1111/jocn.12867. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Simonÿ, C. , Specht K., Andersen I. C., Johansen K. K., Nielsen C., and Agerskov H.. 2018. “A Ricoeur‐Inspired Approach to Interpret Participant Observations and Interviews.” Global Qualitative Nursing Research 5: 233339361880739. 10.1177/2333393618807395. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Skivington, K. , Matthews L., Simpson S., et al. 2021. “Framework for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions: Gap Analysis, Workshop and Consultation‐Informed Update.” Health Technology Assessment 25, no. 57: 1–132. 10.3310/hta25570. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Sorrell, J. M. , and Redmond G. M.. 1995. “Interviews in Qualitative Nursing Research: Differing Approaches for Ethnographic and Phenomenological Studies.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 21, no. 6: 1117–1122. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21061117.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Tarabeih, M. , and Bokek‐Cohen Y.. 2020. “Between Health and Death: The Intense Emotional Pain Experienced by Transplant Nurses.” Nursing Inquiry 27, no. 2: 1–8. 10.1111/nin.12335. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Tausch, A. P. , and Menold N.. 2016. “Methodological Aspects of Focus Groups in Health Research: Results of Qualitative Interviews With Focus Group Moderators.” Global Qualitative Nursing Research 3: 2333393616630466. 10.1177/2333393616630466. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Trettin, B. , Danbjørg D. B., Andersen F., Feldman S., and Agerskov H.. 2021. “An mHealth App to Support Patients With Psoriasis in Relation to Follow‐Up Consultations: Qualitative Study.” JMIR Dermatology 4, no. 1: e28882. 10.2196/28882. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Trettin, B. , Feldman S., Andersen F., Danbjørg D. B., and Agerskov H.. 2021. “Improving Management of Psoriasis Patients Receiving Biological Treatment: A Qualitative Approach.” Nursing Open 8, no. 3: 1283–1291. 10.1002/nop2.745. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Van Ort, S. , and Phillips L. R.. 1995. “Nursing Intervention to Promote Functional Feeding.” Journal of Gerontological Nursing 21, no. 10: 6–14. 10.3928/0098-9134-19951001-04. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Wilkinson, S.
1998. “Focus Groups in Health Research.” Journal of Health Psychology 3, no. 3: 329–348. 10.1177/135910539800300304. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement The authors have nothing to report. Articles from Journal of Advanced Nursing are provided here courtesy of Wiley ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (956.8 KB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top