Page 30 - Shared Guideline Development Experiences in Fertility Care

Chapter 2
Data analysis
All interviews including additions were transcribed verbatim and anonymized. Data were managed using Kwalitan (version 5.0, Malden, the Netherlands) [33]. e data were thematically analysed in four iterative steps [34]. Two investigators (E.M.E.D.B. and W.H.G.) independently coded the transcripts, searched for themes, re ned themes and de ned main themes (key clinical issues) and subthemes according to the four domains derived from the framework of Cabana et al. (i.e. key clinical issues at the level of actual guidelines and at professional, patient and organizational level) [35]. A er each step, the results were compared and any discrepancies were discussed until consensus was achieved. Furthermore, an experienced third researcher (W.L.D.M.N.) checked the codebook, the initial themes, the re ned themes and the de ned main themes and subthemes and critically looked at possible inconsistencies across the de ned main themes and subthemes that were placed into the framework. Inconsistencies were jointly discussed, which resulted in re nement of the themes and replacement of one main theme in the appropriate domain of the framework. To extract the main key clinical issues, the frequency of occurrence of all key clinical issues was determined. Key clinical issues became main key clinical issues when suggested by at least two di erent professionals in both focus groups or in more than three quarters of the infertile couples.
Results
Participants
We interviewed 12 infertile couples and 17 professionals. Couples’ characteristics are presented in Table 1. Infertile couples were selected from all di erent phases of care. e main characteristics of the participating professionals are summarized in Table 2. In focus group one, two-thirds of participating professionals were male, whereas in focus group two, males and females were in equal proportion.
28