| 53 3 post-diagnostic support, barriers and facilitators in the diagnostic trajectory and post-diagnostic support, and perceived needs of people diagnosed and their family members during diagnosis and afterwards. Focus groups were audio and video-recorded, and interviews were audio-recorded. Data were transcribed verbatim, and interviewers made field notes during data collection. Summaries of field notes were reported in a template to aid consistency. Data-analysis SPSS version 25 was used to analyze the quantitative data. Each country combined online survey data with a pre-formatted SPSS file that contained manually entered data from the postal surveys. The primary author (MH) merged data from all countries. Descriptive statistics (mean, SD, percentages) were used to describe those involved in either the diagnostic process only (Dx), postdiagnostic support only (Pds), and involved in both the diagnostic process and post-diagnostic support (Dx+Pds). These three groups were identified based on their answers (yes/no) to the questions on whether they were involved in the diagnostic process and post-diagnostic support. Participants who indicated that they were not directly involved in either (mostly managers) and those who did not specify if they were involved in post-diagnostic support were excluded from the analysis. To examine what will benefit the transition from the diagnostic process to post-diagnostic support we statistically compared those who held negative (very – somewhat dissatisfied), neutral and positive (somewhat – very satisfied) views on the connection from the diagnostic trajectory to postdiagnostic support. These three groups were compared on their experience and satisfaction with the diagnostic process, satisfaction with post-diagnostic support, workplace characteristics, and knowledge of dementia services. To this end, Kruskall–Wallis tests were utilized. The level of significance was set to P=0.05. Significant results were followed up with a Bonferroni corrected posthoc analysis. Qualitative data was analyzed in each country according to an analysis protocol developed by the Netherlands. The analysis protocol allowed for open coding on a country level to elucidate the diagnostic process and post-diagnostic support within each country’s context. Each country created two sets of themes (one for the diagnostic trajectory and one for post-diagnostic support) using an inductive qualitative content analysis (23, 24). This approach to qualitative analysis with data from different countries is similar to the study conducted
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw