2.5. Analysis, and Reflexive and Inclusive Practices

After each interview, KM wrote reflective field notes describing her perceptions of the interviews, important points that had been brought up, and (dis)connects between different families’ narratives as the interviews progressed [20,21]. KM also debriefed with EK after interviews that required referral for additional support. The audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim, then anonymised. KM listened to all the audio-recordings alongside the transcripts to check their accuracy. Analysis of the anonymised interview transcripts was informed by both narrative and thematic approaches [22,23,24]. In line with the guidance around reflexive thematic analysis set out by Braun and Clarke [22], KM read and re-read the transcripts, taking notes, and organically coding across and within the narratives. The field notes also helped to provide context to the narratives. This reflective approach also involved actively collaborating with various groups. KM regularly met with the co-authors to go through different transcripts and discuss potential themes. KM also regularly met with the LOGIC PPI group, made up of parent/carer, child and young person participants from the entire LOGIC cohort study, to discuss study design and management and preliminary findings, including those examined in the current paper. Feedback was also provided to clinicians within the service with aim of informing service provision by taking into account perspectives from families. Using these reflective and collaborative practices helped us to ground the analysis in the lived experiences of the participating parents, children, and young people. We use the word ‘parent’ in this paper to mean any adult in a caring role to help maintain the anonymity of participants. All parents, children, and young people have been given a pseudonym.