FDS Support Groups Evaluation 2014.
4
standardised measure that is used to assess client satisfaction across a wide range of
health and human services and programs.
1
For this evaluation, the survey was distributed through the leaders of the 17 support
groups, who gave group participants the opportunity to complete the survey at two
consecutive sessions (with only one survey completed by each respondent). In
addition to the standard survey questions, participants were also asked their gender,
relationship to the person affected by drug/alcohol use, how long they had been
attending support groups, and whether they had any other feedback, and/or would be
interested in being interviewed about their experiences. To maintain confidentiality,
the surveys were placed in an envelope by participants; these were then mailed to
Argyle Research.
Qualitative data
Qualitative feedback was gathered through interviews and from optional open ended
questions at the end of the CSQ-8 survey. Interview participants were selected from
survey respondents, with the aim of obtaining feedback from 5 families representing a
range of experiences. Interviews were conducted by phone (4) and email (1).
Interviewees were asked to briefly describe why they attended support groups (the
particular issue they had faced), how long they had been attending, how the group had
assisted them in responding and coping with drug use in their family, and whether
they had any other feedback.
The interview responses, along with any relevant responses received to the open
ended section of the survey, were then sorted into themes relating to the qualitative
benefits of attending support groups. Reporting on the qualitative data is by these
themes.
Responses
Feedback was received from 14 of the 17 groups, with 138 survey responses from
participants. It was not possible to determine a response rate from this number, as
some groups are run fortnightly and others, weekly, and there is a mix of new and
regular participants. However, given an average monthly attendance of around 160
individual people (without counting regulars more than once), the response was
around 85% of this number, thus providing a good sample.
1
Attkisson, C. & Greenfield, T. (2004). The UCSF Client Satisfaction Scales: I. The Client
