| 113 5 as part of the larger study (COGNISANCE). To maximize convenience, participants could choose between individual or dyadic interviews (with a caregiver) or focus groups. Participants were also given the choice of face-to-face (when public health orders permitted), telephone, or online interviews. Online sessions utilized Zoom which is the platform preferred by people with dementia (39). All participants were offered instructions and a prior trial session using Zoom. Persons were eligible if they had self-reported a dementia diagnosis in the previous 24 months and could provide informed (or proxy) consent. Data Analysis All interviews, dyads and focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data from the transcripts, along with researcher reflection templates were analysed. Combined ‘meta’ mind maps for the words ‘dementia’ and ‘support’ were created by the researchers and analysed for each country. All authors were involved in a multi-step analysis process led by LP and MH: • Re-familiarizing themselves with their national data sets and the concepts of research cohesiveness: comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness (38). • Attending an online meeting to agree on definitions to capture the important elements related to the use of projective techniques (See Table 1). • Reviewing the three data sets: in-language transcripts, meta-mind maps on the words ‘dementia’ and ‘support’, and researcher reflection templates from their own countries. Content analysis was utilised to deductively identify evidence related to the revised definitions for the three ‘research cohesiveness’ concepts (see Table 1). Evidence from the Netherlands and Poland were translated into English before providing it to the team for their review. Two online meetings were held to discuss and reflect on the deductive analysis. • LP and MH wrote a first draft of the results combining input from all authors. LP conducted an iterative analysis of the meta mind maps from each country tabulating key themes or ideas (see Appendix C). All researchers discussed the draft analysis at an online meeting. All authors then returned to their transcripts, mind maps, and researcher reflections one final time and provided further input and evidence. • LP and MH incorporated additional input, feedback, and quotes and finalized the analysis and results.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw