Data analyses

Thematic analysis

All interviews were analysed by the author. The thematic analysis process described in Chapter 3 was followed. Based on who the interviewer was, the dataset was organised into two groups of interviews. The author assessed whether there were any striking differences between the two datasets in: a) the questions that were asked, b) the identified themes.

Answers to the standardised opening question, asking participants to indicate the most beneficial aspects of the programme, were analysed and presented separately. It was considered important to have a clear picture of the benefits that respondents reported spontaneously and completely unprompted.

Concerns were raised about the fact that the author had also analysed the feedback interviews of the pilot phase of the RCT. The researcher could have developed preconceptions or expectations about the findings, potentially biasing the analysis.

In order to minimise this bias it was decided to involve an independent researcher in the coding process. This is considered to be the qualitative equivalent of "inter-coder reliability" (Barbour, 2001). However, in contrast to quantitative research, what is important is not the degree of agreement between the coders but the opportunity for discussion that may reveal alternative interpretations of the data and potentially lead to the refinement of the coding scheme (Ibid.). An independent researcher (Mr Tom Jeffcoate), who had not been involved in any other aspects of this study, was employed to evaluate how well the thematic network, developed by the author, described each narrative and confirm that no data had been systematically excluded. On the grounds of economy in both cost and effort it has been suggested that the cross-checking of entire datasets should be avoided (Barbour, 2010.) Therefore, a random sample of 50% of the interviews was chosen to be reviewed by the independent researcher. The researcher had no previous experience in conducting thematic analysis. Therefore, instead of proceeding inductively to identify his own thematic network, the researcher was asked to apply the already developed themes to each interview. This deductive approach has been recommended to researchers with little or no experience in identifying themes (Boyatzis, 1998). After being given some information on thematic analysis and the constructs that each theme represented, the independent researcher was instructed to:

 read through the transcripts a few times in order to become familiar with the data,

 for each interview, highlight text segments that conveyed information relevant to the research question (i.e. effects of the memory rehabilitation programme),

 examine whether these pieces of text could be coded into one of the suggested subthemes or themes,

 assess whether the thematic network covered the whole dataset and that important information was not missed due to lack of appropriate themes,

 in case a piece of text that conveyed important information could not be coded into an existing theme, develop new themes that would capture that information,

 spot repetitive and overlapping themes,

 discard themes that were not supported by the data/distorted participants views.

 make a list of the themes identified in each interview,

For each interview, an informal comparison was made between the themes identified by the researcher and the ones identified by the author. Differences were discussed between

the two researchers to assess whether the suggested thematic network needed to be revisited.

Statistical Analyses

The demographic characteristics of the sample were evaluated using the SPSS statistical package version 16.0.

5.3. Results

5.3.1. Participants

Interviews were conducted with 20 participants of the 24 who were allocated to the two compensation, two restitution and two self-help groups. One participant who had fully attended the compensation programme could not continue participation due to poor health (MS relapse).One participant who had dropped off the restitution programnme due to health problems agreed to be interviewed. The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in table 15. Information on the neuropsychological characteristics of participants at recruitment was presented in Chapter 4 (p.138).

Table 15

Demographic characteristics of participants

*IQR (Interquartile range) = Q25-Q75

5.3.2. Identified themes

Reviewing the two sets of interviews indicated that both interviewers explored most of the topics specified in the interview schedule and adopted a non-directive and flexible interviewing approach. It was confirmed that the identified thematic network was valid across the entire dataset. It was also found that the themes that the second coder

confirmed that the thematic network described accurately participants' narratives without excluding important information. There were no suggestions for addition of new themes or exclusion of existing ones. Therefore, no further changes were made to the thematic network.

The analysis of participants’ responses to the opening question on the most beneficial components of the intervention identified 11 themes (presented in table 16).

Table 16

Most beneficial aspects of the memory rehabilitation programme

The same main themes were identified in the rest of the dataset (seen in table 17). For the following themes, frequency counts represented the number of different respondents who articulated each theme across the entire dataset: “How much information is enough”,

“External feedback”, “Individual or group sessions”, “Benefits of the group setting”,

“Optimal group composition”, “Difficulties in evaluating outcome”. The complexity and diversity of opinions that participants expressed in relation to these themes did not allow splitting them into clear-cut positive/negative categories. For the rest of the themes frequency counts represented the number of participants who reported benefits in relation to the area defined by each theme (similarly to the interview study described in Chapter 2). Participants who are not represented by these numbers were people who: a) reported that they did not experience any relevant benefits (although not included in the frequency table these cases were presented and discussed in the relevant theme or subtheme sections); b) did not think the question was relevant/applicable to them; c) they were never actually asked that question (i.e. interviewer’s omission).

Themes Compensation

Table 17

Summary of identified themes and subthemes

.

5.3.3. Generic memory knowledge