The analysis team used an iterative process to discuss themes, clarify and expand upon interpretation of findings, and contextualize the coded responses.
She uses constant comparative methods to identify similarities and differences within and across cases, returning to the raw data iteratively to review categories and themes, clarify meaning, and reflect on patterns and connections emerging from the data [ 33].
The clinical context of themes was clarified by discussion between LM and AMS and any queries were clarified by consulting the original transcripts of sessions.
Lastly, Stage 4 produced a summation of the themes and clarified supporting comments.
The analysis continued by reviewing the text from parts to the whole and back again until themes were clarified [ 45- 47].
The analysis continued by reviewing the text, from parts to the whole, and vice versa, until themes were clarified [ 54, 57].
Each article was reviewed against the codebook, discrepancies were discussed and consensus was gathered to revise, add or remove themes, and clarify existing codebook themes.
These combinations recur throughout the work, and they are so distinctive that in the absence of returning and developing themes they clarify the work's structure and shape.
The data were iteratively analysed in regular research team meetings in order to identify emergent themes, to clarify inconsistencies or unusual findings.
