234 Regarding the quality of the information, our qualitative studies have multiple strengths. A first strength is that we applied two methods of triangulation to heighten the credibility of the results. Methodological triangulation was employed through the utilization of various data collection techniques, including in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and field notes. Researcher triangulation was also done by analyzing the data in pairs and discussing the analyses to seek consensus and identify contradictions. A second strength is that we brought results from our analysis back to the participants and asked them to validate the findings. Validation is an important strategy to heighten the credibility of the results as well. A limitation is that we did not provide the transcripts to the participants for member checking, which is also a strategy to validate the findings. A second limitation is that, with our interview questions, we determined the themes discussed on forehand. We did this to ensure a structured and comprehensive data collection and to inspire patients with LHL with topics to talk about. However, we potentially prompted the participants in the direction of probable outcomes, and thereby influenced the results. Other qualitative methods, such as narrative inquiry, in which the story of the participant is leading, could have delivered other themes. A last limitation is that, possibly, findings are biased by social desirable answers, as some of the participants knew the researcher from his previous job in a dialysis center. For our quantitative study, an important strength regards the use of validated measures and standardized clinical parameters related to kidney health. Thereby, we expect to have appropriately measured the outcomes of interest. If validated measures were unavailable, we based our measures upon care guidelines, for example for fluid and salt intake. However, the use of selfreported questionnaires has limitations. Self-reporting comes with the risk of measurement bias, while direct measures, for example with activity trackers are more precise and preferred[58]. We did not have the resources to use such direct measures. The risk of bias with self-reported measures may be even higher in patients with LHL, who experience more problems in understanding written information, which may have made it difficult to understand the questions. We tried to mitigate this by providing additional guidance when participants indicated they had problems with reading or filling in questionnaires. Another limitation is that blinding was not possible due to the nature of the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw