Background The main defining attribute that delineates focus groups from other methods of collecting data is that data are generated through participants communicating with each other rather than solely with the group moderator. The way in which interactions take place across group interviews and focus groups varies, yet both are referred to as focus groups, resulting in a broad umbrella term for its numerous manifestations.

Aim To reflect on how focus groups are adopted and reported, including the use of the term ‘focus group’.

Discussion The authors recognise that the term ‘focus group’ is sometimes used synonymously with ‘group interview’ but argue that this practice must be challenged. They suggest using terms that indicate the type of space and synchronicity of the focus group, prefixed with ‘in-person’ or ‘conventional’ to identify traditional focus groups. They also suggest separating virtual group interviews into ‘synchronous’ and ‘asynchronous’, based on whether the participants and researchers can engage with each other in real time.

Conclusion There is a need for qualitative researchers to reach a consensus about the nature of focus groups and group interviews, as well as where their differences and similarities lie.

Implications for practice The authors hope to encourage nurse researchers to think about these issues when labelling, planning, analysing and reporting studies involving focus groups.