OBJECTIVES: Asynchronous online focus groups, otherwise known as online bulletin boards, are a data collection method rooted in market research. They involve researchers posing several questions to participants over a short period of time, and participants responding at their preferred time, location, and pace through ‘threads’ visible to all participants. In the era of Patient Focused Drug Development (PFDD), this method may offer an opportunity to generate wide-ranging patient experience data (PED), balancing representativeness and generalizability with participant burden. A variety of PED uses could be envisaged including broad patient insights about disease and treatment, as well as feedback on patient-reported outcome (PRO) strategies and clinical trial commitments. A review was undertaken to explore recent use of asynchronous online focus groups as a method of PED collection.

METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted in PubMed using the broad search terms (singular and plural): “asynchronous online focus group(s)" and “online bulletin board(s)". English language publications from the past 5 years were appraised.

RESULTS: The search elicited 47 publications, of which 11 were considered relevant. These represented 11 separate studies in which asynchronous online focus groups were used. A variety of objectives were stated, including evaluation of patient preferences (n=4) and concept elicitation (n=7). Only one study had an objective of informing PRO strategies for clinical research. None described feedback on PRO strategies or other aspects of clinical research. The 11 studies were conducted across a range of disease areas, including sexual health (n=2), chronic pulmonary obstructive disorder (COPD)(n=2), obesity (n=1), dementia (n=1), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)(n=1), pigmented villonodular synovitis (n=1), primary sclerosing cholangitis (n=1), obstetrics (n=1), and influenza (n=1). Five of the 11 studies were sponsored by (bio)pharmaceutical companies.

CONCLUSIONS: Asynchronous online focus groups are rarely used in PED research. Comparison against commonly used methods is recommended to further evaluate opportunities and challenges.