Page 78 - Shared Guideline Development Experiences in Fertility Care

Chapter 4
thoughts underlying the identi ed in uencing factors on adoption and potentials for improvement of the wiki. Next, patients were asked for additional in uencing factors and suggestions for improvement of the wiki. Recruitment continued until saturation of data was achieved. Regarding the starting and stopping criteria according to Francis and colleagues [33], we started with 2 interviews and aimed to repeat cycles of 2 interviews until we obtained no new data. If data saturation was achieved, an additional interview was conducted to attain data saturation.
Data Analysis
We used SPSS 16.0 for Windows, Data Entry 4.0 (IBM Corporation, Somers, NY, USA) to perform descriptive statistical tests on the background characteristics of the wiki participants and to analyse patients’ top rankings of the recommendations. e nal top selection of recommendations in each section was determined by identifying those with the highest sumscores derived. For analysing the results of the online evaluation questionnaire, we grouped the responses on the 5-point Likert scale into the categories agree (scores 1and 2), neutral (score 3), and disagree (scores 4 and 5). Items were a priori identi ed as facilitators of adoption if >50% chose agree (scores 1 and 2) and as barriers to adoption of the wiki website if >50% of the evaluators chose disagree (scores 4 and 5). We used the reported top three advantages and disadvantages and the potential areas of improvement of the wiki to determine the frequency of occurrence of each aspect. We conducted an initial content analysis of all free-text responses to the questionnaire, to determine additional points to be improved (EB, WN).
Qualitative Analysis of the Interviews
All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed iteratively and thematically across accounts (EB, JK) [34], according to the relevant factors of the evaluation framework, as used in the questionnaire to identify barriers to and facilitators of adoption and potential areas of improvement of the wiki [32]. Another researcher (WN) independently checked the coding framework and analysis.
76