. 2020 Oct 20;70(700):e833–e842. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X713093

Box 2.

Analytical process

Step	Description
1. Content analysis	Content analysis of the qualitative data in two phases with two approaches was used. First, conventional thematic content analysis of raw data generated during the first meeting was conducted. Suggested forms of support ranged from very detailed to quite general. For that reason, the second and third researchers independently grouped similar suggested forms of support into themes and categories, using ATLAS-ti (version 8), and then discussed differences until consensus was reached. Second, the same two researchers added the forms of support mentioned during the second nominal group meeting into this thematic list. This list was then presented to the entire research team and discussed until consensus was reached, resulting in a final thematic list of ideas. To obtain information about the decision-making process and insights into the argumentation regarding each statement, audio-recordings of the round robin phase and discussion/clarification phase were transcribed verbatim and analysed using direct content analysis, again independently, by the first and second authors using ATLAS.ti (version 8). This also enabled the addition of ideas not written down during the meeting.
2. Nominal group ranking	Quantitative analysis of the nominal group ranking. First, individual group scores, that is, the top five priorities, were calculated separately for both meetings. The researchers ranked a top four by calculating the summed score and relative importance of each in-situ category as obtained from the voting phase. When two categories obtained the same score, the categories were ranked not only via scores but also via frequency (the number of times a category was voted for). Next, the themes were ranked based on the scores of the five overarching themes. The total score per theme was calculated by summing the scores of the in-situ categories (calculated in the first step) falling under the new (overarching) theme.

Step

Description

1. Content analysis

Content analysis of the qualitative data in two phases with two approaches was used.
First, conventional thematic content analysis of raw data generated during the first meeting was conducted. Suggested forms of support ranged from very detailed to quite general. For that reason, the second and third researchers independently grouped similar suggested forms of support into themes and categories, using ATLAS-ti (version 8), and then discussed differences until consensus was reached.
Second, the same two researchers added the forms of support mentioned during the second nominal group meeting into this thematic list. This list was then presented to the entire research team and discussed until consensus was reached, resulting in a final thematic list of ideas.
To obtain information about the decision-making process and insights into the argumentation regarding each statement, audio-recordings of the round robin phase and discussion/clarification phase were transcribed verbatim and analysed using direct content analysis, again independently, by the first and second authors using ATLAS.ti (version 8). This also enabled the addition of ideas not written down during the meeting.

2. Nominal group ranking

Quantitative analysis of the nominal group ranking.
First, individual group scores, that is, the top five priorities, were calculated separately for both meetings. The researchers ranked a top four by calculating the summed score and relative importance of each in-situ category as obtained from the voting phase. When two categories obtained the same score, the categories were ranked not only via scores but also via frequency (the number of times a category was voted for).
Next, the themes were ranked based on the scores of the five overarching themes. The total score per theme was calculated by summing the scores of the in-situ categories (calculated in the first step) falling under the new (overarching) theme.