The interview participants
gave significantly more relevant remarks per person than the questionnaire respondents (p < 0.0001). For the focus group participants, such comparison could not be calculated because data was on group level only. The total number of spontaneously mentioned items that were in addition to the items found in literature (in total 14) varied per method: the focus groups revealed 13 new items in relation to the literature, while the interviews revealed 11 and the questionnaires revealed MK0683 8. Table 3 A comparison of remarks and items per person from focus group sessions, interviews and questionnaires Focus groups (n = 33 participants) Interviews (n = 15 participants) Questionnaires (n = 32 participants) Total number of remarks (per person: mean, 25–75 percentile) 157 (4.8) 126 (8.4, 4–10)a 72 (2.3, 2–3)a Total number of items (per person: mean) 30 (0.9) 29 (1.9) 21 (0.7) Number of remarks describing items corresponding with literature (per person: mean, 25–75 percentile) 127 (3.8) 93 (6.2, 3–8)a 54 (1.7, 1–2)a Number of items corresponding with HSP assay literature (per person: mean) 17 (0.5) 18 (1.2) 13 (0.4) Number of remarks describing new items in addition to literature
(per person: mean, 25–75 percentile) 30 (0.9) 33 (2.2, 1–3)a 18 (0.6, 0–1)a Number of new items in addition to literature (per person: mean) 13 (0.4) 11 (0.7) 8 (0.3) Remarks and items may influence student nurses’ choice to use a genetic test for susceptibility
to hand eczema a25–75 percentiles could only be calculated for interviews and questionnaire as they provide data on the individual level The influence on “others in work” and a “low risk skin type” were exclusively mentioned GSK1904529A during Urease the focus groups (Table 2). The “interest in genetic diseases in general” and the “media forum used” were solely mentioned during the interviews. The questionnaires did not reveal any new items that were not mentioned in the other two methods. Although several literature items were not mentioned spontaneously during a focus group, interview or questionnaire, they were all confirmed to be relevant for the use of the test during the discussion of the topic list in the second part of the involvement methods. Discussion Per participant, interviews revealed most barriers and facilitators for using a new genetic test. On average, interview participants produced 1.9 items and 8.4 relevant remarks per participant, in comparison to 0.9 items and 3.8 remarks for focus group participants and 0.7 items and 1.7 remarks for questionnaire respondents. Although interviews revealed more items per participant, the total number of different items was similar to that revealed by the focus groups. Both methods were needed to reveal all different items present in the study population. In total, interviews revealed 29, focus groups 30 and questionnaires only 21 items.