Focus group 3 – CST users

5.6.1 Demographics of focus group 3

Three female participants took part in the CST users focus group. Participant C001 had been having sessions on and off for about seven years, participant C002 had

134

been having sessions for a year and participant C003 had been having sessions for almost four years. All participants lived in Scotland and the focus group took place at the home of a CST practitioner in Edinburgh. No participants were known to NB or the host practitioner. The host practitioner acted as volunteer research assistant and ensured the recording equipment was working and made notes of the

discussion for cross-referencing purposes. At no time was the research assistant involved in the discussions. The focus group discussion lasted for 1 hour 27 minutes.

5.6.2 Layout and design of conceptual framework

Layout: C001 liked the complexity of the conceptual framework “I like the fact that it has a very definite centre to it, I mean in a way it’s a target, your aim is health and

wellbeing and all these other things are clearly related to it”. A suggestion was made to ensure that the arrows on the conceptual framework were double headed to emphasise the nature of the relationships between all elements of the

conceptual framework and that they are not exclusive. Some suggestions were made regarding consistency when applying grammar to the content.

5.6.3 Content of conceptual framework: domain, sub-domain level and item level

Spiritual wellbeing:One participant didn’t like the word ‘spirituality’, and felt it could mean lots of different things. A second participant could see why it was on the conceptual framework and acknowledged that having CST can take one into deeper states, to what might be called ‘spiritual experiences’ which bring deeper philosophical insights when having sessions. Participant C002 agreed but felt the term ‘spirituality’ was too narrow to describe those experiences. In the end, all participants agreed that this domain should remain on the conceptual framework. The topic of ‘animals’ was talked about, in the context of being connected to something beyond oneself, nature and animals.

Physical Functioning: Participants discussed the components of the domain and queried whether it was intentional that ‘daily activities’ was only expressed as

135

‘work life’. NB clarified that ‘work life’ was introduced due to the previous focus group discussions. Participants explored whether an individual’s work life had consequences in other areas of life in addition to physical functioning. The group deliberated whether other aspects of life needed to be mentioned such as ‘family life’ which, to a mother of young children may be all encompassing. One

participant questioned whether ‘work life’ was the correct term as it might exclude all other activities and suggested ‘daily tasks’ as an alternative. Participant C003 suggested that demands might be more suited “it’s just demands that are put on us”.

Mental wellbeing: ‘Inner involvement’ was discussed,oneparticipant thought that ‘inner involvement’ was a difficult concept to understand. The group were not sure that the term ‘self-care’ (which was one of the three the original terms used here) was correct either. One participant suggested that what they were discussing was ‘taking responsibility for one’s health’ as it meant being pro-active in some way,

“it’s more inner reflective where you’ve got to be more determined”. C003

suggested “taking time and responsibility for our own health”. Two participants felt that taking reflective down time and allowing a nurturing experience were two separate things, participant C001 agreed.

Social wellbeing: participants were probed about ‘intimate relationships’ and what they thought about it. Participants had not had direct experience of CST influencing this aspect of their lives but all could see that it might be relevant for others and should, therefore, be on the conceptual framework.

Symptoms:participants queried the position of ‘symptoms’ as initially they

expected to see it linked to physical wellbeing. NB suggested that ‘symptoms’ can be present in other areas such as emotional and psychological issues, all

participants understood and agreed with its location on the conceptual framework.

Seen as ‘missing’ by CST users:Participants provided some ‘missing items’ from the conceptual framework:

136 • mindfulness

• autonomy

• relationships with animals

“Feelings of ‘connectedness’” was discussed as an outcome because of having had CST, which was linked to ‘trust’ as ‘trusting’ was a key part of the process of CST. Participants suggested that ‘connectedness’ and ‘trust’ were linked to awareness and needed to be depicted in the centre of the conceptual framework with

‘awareness’. Participants were keen that the following topics were documented as missing: healing (missing from the physical functioning domain), the CST process, and the value of the therapeutic relationship with a CST practitioner.

5.6.4 Summary of focus group 3

The domain of ‘spirituality’ was debated in terms of what it meant. ‘Physical functioning’ and the components linked to it were discussed and participants recommended ‘daily tasks’ replace ‘work life’. At a sub-domain level, ‘inner

involvement’ was examined in terms of what participants understood this to mean, and participants suggested that ‘taking responsibility for self’ was more

appropriate. The position of ‘symptoms’ on the conceptual framework was queried until a consensus was reached that its current position was satisfactory. At a

component level, participants agreed that ‘intimate relationships’ and the topic of ‘animals’ remain on the conceptual framework. Participants identified topics that they felt were missing from the conceptual framework and some recommendations to improve the layout and suggestions of grammatical consistency were made.