Study sample

The target sample for this study were health care and social work professions from one specific health board and local authority, with a specific remit in mentoring students during their practice placements. Identifying an appropriate sample size proved challenging because each profession had a different system for recording registered mentors. It was, therefore, difficult to estimate the total number of practice mentors within the health board and local authority. It was anticipated that a sample of 200 practice mentors, with a balanced number of participants from each profession; nursing and midwifery, medical, AHPs and social work, would generate an adequate amount of quantitative data for the method of statistical analysis being used. To ensure that participants were eligible for this study, the following inclusion criteria were set:

Inclusion criteria

• Only professions from a health care or social work background who worked within the identified health board or local authority chosen for this case study • Only professions governed by a professional body such as the GMC, NMC,

50 • Only newly qualified and experienced professions who worked within a

hospital, community setting or local authority

• Only professions who were responsible for mentoring or supervising students during their practice placements

In Chapter 6, the analysis of the data collected from the online surveys presents detailed descriptive statistics of the final sample characteristics. However, as an indication of the total sample recruited for the collection of quantitative data and where cases were deemed eligible for quantitative analysis, the total sample consisted of 90 health care and social work professions, 22 from the GMC (24.4%), 21 from the HCPC (21%), 35 from the NMC (38.9%), 9 from the SSSC (10%) and 3 from the GPhC (3.3%). As discussed further in Chapter 6, not all the survey participants could be included in the quantitative analysis due to small number of participants from the professional groups of social work and pharmacy.

Setting the inclusion criteria for this study ensured that parameters were identified to target the sample of interest for this study (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011) but also ensured that the sample remained representative of the population of practice mentors in a health board and local authority. Sample representativeness was a vital component of this study, particularly in the analysis of the quantitative data, and where specific variables of interest were analysed to determine their effect on practice mentors’ attitudes to IPW, and IPPL for students. In Chapter 2, a review of the literature showed that there were limitations with sampling strategies, sample size and representation of samples in previous studies. In attempting to address these limitations, the researcher set out to ensure sample representativeness by employing the range of strategies presented in this chapter.

4.4.1 Sampling strategy

The sampling strategy consisted of a multi stage approach using non-random sampling strategies; criterion-i, quota sampling and snowball sampling. Criterion-i was the main sampling strategy which was used to recruit participants for the online survey. Based on the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the sample in this study consisted of health care and social work professions who mentored students during their practice placements. Criterion-i sampling, as a type of purposeful sampling method, is based on the assumption that the sample selected

51 will have expert knowledge and skills related to the phenomena of interest (Palinkas et al., 2013). In this study, the assumption was made that practice mentors would have expert knowledge and skills related to IPW and thus may have formulated attitudes and beliefs in relation to IPW in their workplace. Whilst it was questionable whether they would have experience of IPPL for students, they still may have developed attitudes or beliefs related to students from different professions learning together. These attitudes could therefore be captured by the online survey.

Following the first initial stages of recruitment, it became apparent that there were a larger number of practice mentors from the nursing profession and medical profession recruited, in comparison to social workers and AHPs. It was therefore necessary to specifically target these latter professions for recruitment using quota sampling. This sampling method is often used where a study requires to reach a specific quota of specific characteristics within a sample (Coolican, 2009; Cohen, Mahon, and Morrison, 2011). As previously discussed in Chapter 2, a review of the literature highlighted that sample representativeness was a gap identified in previous studies related to IPW and IPPL. Employing quota sampling ensured that the sample was varied in relation to professional background, professional experience and experience of IPPL. These variables would be important later during the analysis of data, specifically in analysing the effect of different variables on attitudes to IPW, and IPPL for students. This analysis is discussed further in Chapter 6.

Ongoing attempts to reach the quota sample led to a snowball sampling strategy being employed during the collection of qualitative data for this study. Snowball sampling is another type of purposeful sampling whereby research participants become key informants by identifying other potential research participants (Cohen et al., 2011; Robson, 2011; Palinkas et al., 2013). In this study, interview participants became key informants by identifying colleagues who were also eligible for the study. Snowball sampling proved to be beneficial when recruitment of participants started to slow down, and where strategies to recruit more participants had been exhausted. These recruitment strategies are discussed further in Section 4.5 of this chapter. Palinkas et al. (2013) advises that one of the limitations of criterion sampling is that there is a risk of excluding other participants who could also offer rich insight. As discussed in Section 4.4, health and social care professions not registered with a

52 professional governing body were excluded from the sample criteria. This meant that health or social care support workers, who worked in a hospital or community setting and who may also have contributed to students’ learning during their practice placements, were excluded from this study. Although support workers may not have a specific remit within their role to supervise or mentor students in practice, they may still have had interactions with students and have had an influence on their experiences of IPW. This group may have offered a different perspective on attitudes to IPW, and IPPL for students, as well as insight in to the enablers and barriers in practice settings.