The study employed qualitative content analysis to analyse data as described by Padgett [19]. The appropriate form of analysis was inductive content analysis because there were no pre-empted themes to guide the study. The researchers read and reread the transcripts several times to make meaning of participants’ views/challenges. The first author (AA) and sixth author (GKK) generated an independent coding frame through reading and re-reading the interview transcripts focusing on keywords, sentences, and phrases to reduce data to codes. AA and GKK coded the same interviews to identify and discuss the differences in coding to check for intercoder reliability. The generated codes were constantly compared for conceptual similarity and differences by referring to the original interview transcripts. Similar codes were combined into themes. An iterative process was used during the revision of codes, through backward and forward data assessment and analysis resulting in the verification and modification of themes. Regular data sessions were organised in which all the authors met with AA and GKK to review the coding and mutually agreed on the codes and then reached a consensus on how to form the final themes.

Note: The content above has been extracted from a research article, so it may not display correctly.

Please log in to submit your questions online.
Your question will be posted on the Bio-101 website. We will send your questions to the authors of this protocol and Bio-protocol community members who are experienced with this method. you will be informed using the email address associated with your Bio-protocol account.

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By using our website, you are agreeing to allow the storage of cookies on your computer.