Study Site, Recruitment, and Sampling

This qualitative study was conducted using online and in-person interview focus groups at a Canadian university. The study aimed to elicit the perspectives of experts in the field of occupational science and public health, recruited from a Canadian university and from online public health webinars and forums. The inclusion criteria for sampling participants included: (a) individuals who studied or contributed to the knowledge base through conceptual articles, research, or teaching in occupational science and/or public health, and (b) individuals who spoke English. Potential participants included faculty in

occupational science or therapy and/or public health, PhD candidates or graduates in the occupational science field or public health, Master of Public Health graduates, post- doctoral fellows, experienced occupational therapists, public health professionals, and visiting scholars with experience in occupational science or public health.

This group of participants was purposively sampled as they have an expertise in

inequities from an occupational lens (Patton, 2002). The recruitment of participants with an affiliation to a particular Canadian university was conducted because it is an English- speaking institute and offers occupational science and public health fields. In addition, the research team is well-connected to the university, therefore making sampling accessible. This study, however, did not limit participants to those that only work/study/are affiliated with this particular Canadian university.

Exclusion criteria for participants of this study were: (a) individuals who were currently in a master’s program, and/or (b) individuals who didn’t speak English. Current master’s students were excluded to allow for more experienced participants in their respective fields. Also to allow for communication with the research team, non-English speaking participants were excluded.

A purposeful sample of participants was asked to participate in the study via email, brief presentations, and forum posts (Patton, 2002). The recruitment email can be found in Appendix C and the letter of information that was attached in emails can be found in Appendix D. Patton (2002) explained that purposive sampling is a non-random sampling technique in which the researcher samples from participants with specific characteristics. The sample was primarily recruited by obtaining an email list of faculty, post-doctorates, current senior and alumni PhD students, and visiting faculty through the university registrar’s office. Potential participants recommended by the research team were also invited to participate via email. Secondly, the advisory committee member took part in the recruitment process by presenting the opportunity for public health experts to

participate in this study at team meetings with affiliated health organizations. Moreover, recruitment through an online webinar hosted by Community Health Networking-Works! (ChNet!, 2014), a knowledge exchange tool supporting dialogue and translation to

support the development of evidence informed policies, programs, and services, was arranged by the researcher to recruit public health experts. Lastly, after a meeting with a knowledge translation specialist in public health (H.M., personal communications, November 8, 2013), the research team was advised to make wording changes to the recruitment advertisement. After recommended revisions of the recruitment

Western University’s Research Ethics Board, the researcher posted in National

Collaborating Centre for Social Determinants of Health’s online forum, as suggested by the knowledge translation specialist. The revised advertisement was also posted on an online university course site, accessible to the faculty and students of a public health program. The revised version of the recruitment advertisement can be found in Appendix C.

A total of eight participants in the occupational science field were included in the study. The study did not result in any participants specifically in the field of public health, details in section 3.6.1. Three small focus group interviews (Delbecq et al., 1975; Harvey & Homes, 2012; Tuffrey-Wijne et al., 2007; Krueger & Casey, 2000) were used to collect data. Once a purposive sample size of 3-8 experts agreed to participate, a date was

confirmed (Patton, 2002). Due to date conflicts for participants, three separate focus groups were conducted for the occupational science participants, splitting the groups to 2- 4 participants each. A sample size of 6-10 participants supports the collection of in-depth data from a small number of participants with diverse opinions within a focus group (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The following section outlines the limitations and challenges with recruitment of study participants.

3.6.1 limitations and challenges.

Although the study’s objectives were to elicit the perspectives of both occupational science experts and public health professionals, the recruitment of public health professionals resulted in zero participants. Many recruitment strategies were used to target this field as outlined in section 3.6 including forum postings, emails, and recommendations of affiliated organizations by an advisory committee member. After several attempts, a knowledge translation specialist in the field of public health was consulted (H.M., personal communications, November 8, 2013). Revisions were made to the language of the recruitment advertisement to clarify occupational science concepts to outside disciplines, as shown in Appendix C. The lack of response from the public health field may have been due to misunderstandings of the research study and the use of unrecognized occupational science concepts. Moreover, the other limitation was that the

participants recruited for this study were bounded by a Western world viewpoint of occupation and health inequities as all participants were from one area of Canada.