Qualitative approaches included focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted in the community, semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs) with mothers or caretakers, and key informant interviews (KIIs) of grandmothers, conducted in the home of young children enrolled in GEMS (Table 1).
We employed a user-centered design approach, including focus groups, prototyping, brain storming sessions and usability testing sessions.
First, we used an ethnographic approach, including focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with women and health personnel to assess the culture-related values in each country.
Also for the feasibility and acceptability testing, a mixed methods approach, including focus groups or interviews, could have resulted in more in-depth information about certain aspects, such as the high initial response rate and the relatively low proportion completing an action plan.
Alternative approaches include focusing on coercion, endorsement, or neutrality.
Possible approaches include focusing on functional classes (e.g., Table S3) or gonadal gene regulatory networks.
First randomised trial to compare the overall diagnostic performance between the conventional approach and an approach including focused sonography to evaluate and diagnose acute admitted patients with respiratory symptoms, admitted to an emergency department.
We used a multi-method approach, including focus-group discussions and a cross-sectional survey, because we believed that the study of such an intimate and partly taboo subject would most likely benefit by adopting different methods.
Our mixed-method approach included focus group discussions with relatives and providers to gain an understanding of decision support needs and inform the development of decision support toolsa.
That approach included focusing heavily on nationalist arguments about Scottish identity and culture rather than being brave enough to see Scotland's problems as part of a global crisis that also affected England and the rest of the UK.
