Thus, it is conceivable that there exists an interpretation of the discussion below in terms of a multiuser communication problem, but we do not know of one.
Finally the model was send to the participants to check if it reflected the discussion correctly and whether our interpretation of the discussion was accurate.
The inclusion of lay participants in the analysis and the writing of this article was also helpful because it allowed for the research team to confirm their interpretation of the discussion.
One can give another interpretation of the above discussions.
In the third phase of selective coding, the core categories on which the interpretation of the group discussions was constructed were then worked out.
V.V. and G.A. were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data, discussion and writing the manuscript.
BB, PS, CR, SME and KLI contributed to the interpretation of the results, discussion and refinement of the manuscript.
CN, NS, NH and UV were involved in the study conceptualization, interpretation of the results, discussion and revision of the manuscript.
JB participated in the interpretation of data, discussions around the biological importance of observations and writing and editing of the manuscript.
