Table 2.

Meta-analysis and triangulation scenarios for study components in the evaluation phase.³⁷

Qualitative results (interview data)	Quantitative results (video analysis data)	Possible conclusion	Possible implications for design guidelines
Patients/care providers are enthusiastic about the prototypes and/or feel that its use positively impacts communication	Clear difference between control and prototype groups in PCC (i.e. higher facilitating and/or lower inhibiting behaviour rates)	Agreement: Prototype performs as expected	Little or no adaptations to guidelines needed
Patients/care providers have many remarks on prototype, and/or do not feel that its use impacts communication during post-surgery consultations	Clear difference between control and prototype groups in PCC (i.e. higher facilitating and/or lower inhibiting behaviour rates)	Disagreement: Prototype performs as expected, but this is not perceived as such by users	Use same features in next prototype, but expand them or frame them differently
Patients/care providers are enthusiastic about the prototypes and/or feel that its use positively impacts communication	No (clear) difference between control and prototype groups in PCC (i.e. similar facilitating/inhibiting behaviour rates)	Disagreement: Prototype does not perform as expected, but users are satisfied with it	Expand features and functions in next prototype, in order to increase its impact
Patients/care providers have many remarks on prototype, and/or do not feel that its use impacts communication during post-surgery consultations	No (clear) difference between control and prototype groups in PCC (i.e. similar facilitating/inhibiting behaviour rates)	Agreement: Prototype does not perform as expected	Formulate new features or functions (perhaps even different objectives) for next prototype