Table 9.
Content Analysis, Question 4.a
| Theme/Topic | Mentions, Total, n (SD)b | Mentions, Panel Members, Percentage (SD)c | Consensus (%)d | Interrater Reliability (%)e |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studies demonstrating an integrative approach/whole systems approachA,B | 4.67 (0.58) | 4.00 (0.00) | 96.9 | 100 |
| Case studies/case series by ND oncologistsC | 3.67 (1.15) | 3.67 (1.15) | 75 | 100 |
| Data on recurrence rates, longitudinal observational studiesD | 3.33 (0.58) | 3.00 (1.00) | 87.5 | 100 |
| Data on survival outcomes, longitudinal observational studiesE | 2.67 (1.15) | 3.33 (1.15) | 90.6 | 100 |
| Research on specific cancers and therapies, standardized protocolsF | 2.67 (0.58) | 2.00 (0.00) | 75 | 100 |
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
All data are averaged from the thematic identification of 3 blinded research assistants. Ranking of themes is systematic and primarily based on interrater reliability, followed by total number of mentions, and finally considering the number of panel members to mention each theme.
Average number of theme mentions during discussion.
Average number of panel members who verbalized the theme during discussion.
The percentage of consensus for each theme among panel members. Consensus was the average of the following survey choices: completely agree (100%), mostly agree (75%), somewhat agree (50%), mostly disagree (25%), completely disagree (0%).
The interrater reliability among the 3 research assistants who completed the thematic coding.