Le financement des soins infirmiers à domicile en Belgique - KCE

102 Financing of Home Nursing KCE reports 122
The proposition forms, with the scores and written arguments and opinions, were
collected after the stakeholder meeting. To analyse the stakeholder-perspective from
which some arguments were given, the participants were asked to put their names on
the forms, with the guarantee that nobody would be quoted by name.
One of the researchers (JP) operated as moderator of the group discussions using a
predefined scenario, including support questions 85 . One of the researchers (WS)
operated as co-moderator for time-keeping, helping the moderator when necessary 85 .
Each session proceeded in the same way:
1. Introduction and welcome
2. Identification of purpose of the study
3. Introduction to the method of the study and stakeholder dialogue
4. Introduction to group discussion
5. Introducing participants’ (name, organisation, role)
6. Reading first proposition aloud + clarification (JP)
7. Scoring the proposition (on paper) + formulating arguments (10’)
8. One hour group discussion per proposition
9. Next proposition…
10. Group discussion
11. Finalizing and thanking for collaboration
One month elapsed between the two stakeholders’ sessions. The first session explored
opinions on the statements 1 to 4. The second session focused on the statements 5 to
8.
The dialogue from the first session was transcribed and analyzed before session 2 in
order to detect whether some additional issues should be discussed more in depth
during the second stakeholder meeting. Between the first and the second session, a
research team meeting (15 June 2009) was organised for an intermediate analysis of the
first sessions, checking for saturation or emerging new priority topics. This intermediate
analysis did not urge to change or adapt the original propositions 5 to 8. Due to time
constraints, two propositions were discussed simultaneously: proposition 3& 4, and
proposition 5&6.
Analysis and reporting of the stakeholder dialogue:
In each stage of the raw data reporting or analysis at least two researchers were
involved (MP, CD, LP, WS, ML).
The analysis was carried out as follows:
1. Thematic minutes of sessions according to relevant topics (MP, CD, WS, LP).
Researcher triangulation of minutes and check for completeness (CD, LP).
2. The arguments of the stakeholders were first thematically grouped by two
researchers into summary raw data reports of the respective meetings. The
reports were corrected for missing or inaccurate data by two researchers
per session (MP, CD, LP), who participated as external observers.
3. This stage was followed by:
4. General Classification of content and control of statements for stakeholder
86, 87
attributes
5. Thematic details coding of topics according to their content (MP, CD, LP,
ML). All topics were classified in a classification table.