Table 3.

Actions taken to ensure study rigour and engage in reflexivity

Aspect of the study	Actions taken
Sampling	Participants were selected based on their ability to provide data to enable achievement of the study’s aims
	Justification for sample size and sampling strategy was provided
Data collection	Interviewers had the necessary interviewing skills to listen assiduously, negotiate meaning when aspects of narratives appeared unclear, and respond to participants in a manner that deepened the exploration of the essence of their words
	Interviewers were sensitive to, and tried to be aware of, all participants’ verbal, nonverbal, and non-behavioural communication
Data analysis	Two research team members (DOK and AS) analysed data independently and compared and agreed codes and themes
	Data were interpreted rather than just paraphrased or described
	Thorough engagement with the data ensured themes developed were internally coherent, consistent, and distinctive
Report writing	Assumptions about, and our specific approach to, thematic analysis were clearly articulated
	Language and concepts used in study write up were consistent with the epistemological position adopted
	A balance was achieved between presenting interview extracts to illustrate themes and our analytic narrative so interpretations presented could be judged a reasonable representation of participants’ accounts
All study processes	A detailed audit trail of study processes, the research design, and its implementation was created
Reflexivity	Analytical memos, thoughts, and reflections were recorded, reviewed, and shaped our analysis
	We reflected on how our partial and positioned perspectives impacted knowledge produced by considering how our values, beliefs, academic/clinical training, life experiences, and context affected research processes
	We sought to limit the influence of our preconceptions by actively searching for data that challenged initial interpretations