Skip to main content

Table 1 Thematic analysis

From: Challenges to ensuring valid and useful waiting time monitoring – a qualitative study in Swedish specialist care

Step Description Example from analysis in the present study
Familiarizing Read data multiple times and note ideas Ideas:
• Confusion from several parallel systems
• Difference between private and public ownership?
Coding Apply open codes to data relevant to research question Coding:
• “to be able to see the gain in using the [the registry]. You need to be able to see the gain. One does only need to look to oneself, one does not do anything if one can’t see the gain.” coded as “see gain of registry”
Searching for themes Group codes into initial subthemes and themes Forming tentative subthemes (here with example of codes):
o Thought data was automatically extracted
o The registry should be automatic
o Don’t know the system but believe it’s mostly automatic
Quality assurance of waiting time registry and reports
o Care provider in need of better support
o Administering mistakes in registry
o Field-visits would be valuable but have no time
Reviewing Check if themes represent their codes and all relevant data Merging subthemes and moving codes:
Automatization was merged into subtheme technical errors, and Quality assurance of waiting time registry and reports into Low usefulness of system output
• Subtheme Errors due to roles and responsibility was moved from theme The cognitive task of reporting to Structural barriers to validity
• Code “Two different registries” was moved from Trust as a mechanism of perceived validity, to Technical errors
Defining Analyze for renaming themes and formulate explicit definitions Renaming:
The cognitive task of reporting was renamed Cognitive barriers to validity
Need for feedback and its impact on usefulness was renamed Self-reinforcing validity and usefulness
  1. Notes. Thematic analysis of the present study. The themes were created iteratively, moving back and forth between the outlined steps. Subthemes in italics. Themes were not mutually exclusive since the components of the system interacts. Eg. a particular problem at the cross-section of the IT-system and the working process could both be seen as a technical problem and a procedural problem