Skip to main content
. 2024 Apr 24;9:217. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.21131.1

Table 2. Participation in FGDs in terms of the number of contributions (responses) per participant.

Participant
contributions in
segments, n
BLANTYRE LILONGWE
FGD FGD1.1 FGD1.2 FGD1.3 FGD1.4 FGD2.1 FGD2.2 FGD2.3 FGD2.4 FGD2.5
P1 9 15 9 3 18 5 6 6 4
P2 12 5 7 13 8 7 11 9
P3 11 8 13 11 7 11 3 3 8
P4 9 7 7 10 9 15 6 5 2
P5 6 2 14 8 7 14 11 9 2
P6 9 12 7 4 4 7 5 7
P7 3 4 6 5 2 3 8 6
P8 16 7 3 6 6 8
P9 5 15 8
P10 9 7
Total responses 47 79 88 58 58 76 53 51 37
Participants 5 10 9 7 7 10 8 8 8

Note. FGD1.1=Clinicians (Blantyre) FGD1.2=Environmental Health Officers (Blantyre) FGD1.3 Health Surveillance Assistants (Blantyre) FGD1.4 = Laboratory Technicians (Blantyre) FGD2.1= Clinicians (LL Bwaila) FGD2.2=Environmental Health Officers (LL Bwaila) FGD2.3=Health Surveillance Assistants (LL Area 25 HC) FGD2.4=Laboratory Technicians (LL Area 25 HC) FGD2.5=Laboratory Technicians (LL Bwaila) Participants are labeled in the same way, P1, P2 and so on. However, there was no relationship between P1 in one group and P1 in the other group. All groups had distinct participants. Participant P2 in FGD2.5 had to leave the meeting soon after joining for a family emergency.