Methods
Participants
Our purposive participant sample was recruited from two cancer
survivorship support groups run by the Cancer Society, specialist
oncologists and a tertiary oncology treatment centre. Health
professionals (specialist oncology nurses, volunteers working in
oncology services, general practitioners, practice nurses and
domiciliary nurses) at the Society and each of these units gave
potential participants information sheets about the project that asked
them to contact us if they were interested in participating.
Data collection
Over a period of two months, from October-December 2016, we conducted
single occasion semi-structured interviews with the cancer survivors
that focused on the participants’ experiences of living beyond cancer.
The participants could follow their train of thought and include any
material they thought was relevant. These interviews took place in their
homes and lasted approximately 60 minutes. Interviews were recorded and
both researchers kept reflective and descriptive field notes. Interviews
were transcribed by a contracted transcriber who had signed a
confidentiality agreement.
Data Analysis
Our reading of the transcripts was naive, prolonged, contemplative and
empathetic as we wanted to be open to all potentials and possibilities.
We read each transcript in its entirety several times to develop an
overall impression and then divided the text into units of meaning.
After all possible meanings and contextual aspects were identified
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008) we grouped the units of meaning into tables
under overarching headings. Each group was then separately examined and
arranged into categories. Subthemes were identified, sorted into tables
and analysed for themes and overarching themes. This process continued
until we understood and could substantiate the emergent themes.
Rigour
Both researchers analysed all the transcripts and cross-checked each
other’s analysis (Tong, Sainsbury & Craig, 2007). We discussed any
differences and then either developed a new theme or allocated the data
to an agreed code. Although we reached saturation (where no new data
emerged) after analysing ten transcripts, we continued the analysis over
the remaining four transcripts to ensure that this was indeed the case.
As we are both registered nurses we had to be mindful of not imposing
our professional views on the views of the participants so that useful
insights were overlooked. We kept reflective logs and involved a lay
researcher in the project to challenge our interpretations and
assumptions, especially as none of the participants wanted to review
their transcripts. (Yardley, 2000). Given that the researchers and
participants were of European ethnicity we also involved a researcher of
different ethnicity, again to challenge our interpretations and
assumptions.
Ethics
Our study was approved the University Human Ethics Committee.
Participants were provided with information sheets explaining the study
and our expectations should they decide to participate. They were
considered a study participant once they had given their written consent
indicating their understanding of the study, what was required of them,
how their confidentiality would be protected (through the allocation to
codes to transcripts and field notes, confidentiality agreements for
transcribers, and anonymised publications), and that they could withdraw
at any time and have any data removed if they wished. Participants were
given the opportunity review their manuscripts. No one chose to do so.