Table 1.
Content Analysis Table for DPs.
| Category | Number of individuals who mentioned the category | ‘Positive’ mentionsa | ‘Negative’ mentionsa | Number of mentions overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance on Extrafacial Information | 45 (90%) | 45 | 0 | 252 |
| Group and Social Contexts | 45 (90%) | 45 | 0 | 212 |
| Importance of Context | 43 (86%) | 43 | 0 | 81 |
| Insight and Implications for Self-Referral | 39 (78%) | 10 | 29 | 144 |
| Alternative Explanations | 31 (62%) | 31 | 0 | 83 |
aPositive and negative mentions offer more insight into the categories. For example, DPs who believe that those with the condition do have insight into their difficulties are considered a positive mention whereas those who believe that DPs do not have insight into their difficulties are considered a negative mention. This is elaborated within the Discussion. The categories revealed by the DP data and the number of individuals who discussed that category.