Introduction
Methods
Country | Number of in-depth interviews | Gender break-down of the in-depth interview respondents | Number of focus groups with people with TB | Gender break-down of the focus groups’ participants | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
women | men | gender-diverse | women | men | gender-diverse | total | |||
Georgia | 30 | 33.3% | 60% | 6.7% | 2 (1 men only and 1 women only) | 6 | 10 | 0 | 16 |
Kazakhstan | 30 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 4 (2 men only and 2 women only) | 22 | 22 | 0 | 44 |
Republic of Moldova | 6 | 40% | 60% | 0 | 4 (2 men only, 1 women only and 1 mixed) | 9 | 18 | 0 | 27 |
Tajikistan | 20 | 40% | 60% | 0 | 11 | 80 | 60 | 00 | 140 |
Total number of respondents | 86 | 227 |
Information about the interviewer/focus group facilitator | Georgia | Kazakhstan | Republic of Moldova | Tajikistan |
---|---|---|---|---|
Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity | ||||
Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group? | The co-author participated in the interviews and focus groups. | Interviews and focus groups were conducted by two contracted data collectors from the affected communities. | Interviews and focus groups were conducted by 12 contracted data collectors, mainly from the affected communities. | The co-author participated in the interviews and focus groups. |
Did the gender of the interviewers match the gender of the interviewees? | No. | No, the two persons conducting interviews and facilitating focus groups were women. | No, all interviews were conducted by women. | Yes. |
Where focus groups were not mixed, did the gender of the focus group facilitators match the gender of the focus group participants? | No. | No. | No, most moderators in focus groups were women. | Yes. |
What experience and training did the interviewers have? | Interviewers were social workers, peer-educators with experience of working with TB key populations and conducting interviews. No extra training was provided. Interviewers belonged to the populations affected by TB. None of the interviewers had a history of TB. | One day training on interviewing and focus group facilitation was provided. The interviewers were employed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) active in the field of TB. | One day training on interviewing and focus group facilitation was provided. The interviewers were employed by NGOs active in the field of TB, persons with a history of TB. | Interviewers were gender specialists, with experience in interviewing. |
What experience and training did focus group facilitators have? | Facilitators were social workers, peer-educators with experience of working with TB risk groups and conducting focus groups. | One day training on interviewing and focus group facilitation was provided. Both female facilitators had personal experience of TB. | One day training on interviewing and focus group facilitation was provided. The facilitators were employed by NGOs active in the field of TB, including persons with a history of TB. | Facilitators received training. Skilled and experienced facilitators were selected for focus group discussions. |
Relationship with participants | ||||
Relationship established: Was a relationship established prior to study commencement? | Some of the respondents were beneficiaries of the NGOs that employed the interviewers. | Some participants had pre-established relations with the facilitator. | Some of the respondents were beneficiaries of the NGOs that employed the interviewers. | No. |
Participant knowledge of the interviewer: What did the participants know about the researcher. | Participants did not have specific knowledge about the interviewer. | Participants knew that the interviewer had a history of TB. | Participants did not have specific knowledge about the interviewer. | Participants did not have specific knowledge about the interviewer. |
Other characteristics about the inter viewer/facilitator. | None. | None. | None. | None. |
Domain 2: Study design | ||||
Theoretical framework | Barriers were analyzed along the stages that a person with TB goes through. The stage of diagnosis is preceded by the stage of symptoms recognition and the stage of seeking health care. | |||
Methodological orientation | Discourse analysis. | |||
Participant selection | ||||
Sampling: How were participants selected? | Participants were selected on purposive basis: some from the TB registry and some were beneficiaries the NGOs or were recommended by other respondents based on the “snowball method”. | Participants were selected on purposive basis: some from the TB registry and some were beneficiaries the NGOs or were recommended by other respondents based on the “snowball method”. | Purposive and convenience methods used: some based on the NGOs territorial coverage: some from the TB registry. | Participants were selected on purposive basis: for focus groups by the NGOs that provided them with services and for the interviews - from on the TB registry to have equal numbers of men and women and those who were still on anti-TB treatment or had completed treatment by the time of the interview. |
Method of approach: How were participants approached? | In case the participant was a beneficiary, they were approached face-to-face while receiving service at NGO premises grounds or were contacted by phone. Participants proposed based on TB registry were contacted by phone. | Face-to-face. | The recruitment of study participants was led by the NGOs using mostly telephone and face – to – face method of approach. | By telephone, email and personally through NGOs and TB doctors. |
Sample size interviews | 30 | 30 | 6 | 20 |
Number of focus groups and (number of participants) | 2 (16) | 4 (44) | 4 (27) | 11 (140) |
Non-participation: How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? | Approximately one third, the main reason for non-participation was not wanting to hear about the disease again. | Unidentified number of people refused, women mostly referred to lack of time and the need to take care of children. | Approximately one third, due to various reasons such as personal reasons or competing priorities. | Several women with TB refused to participate because of fear of stigmatization. |
Setting | ||||
Setting of data collection: Where was the data collected? | At NGO premises. | Interviews were at TB clinic, HIV Center or NGO premises. Focus groups were also conducted at the locations convenient for the focus group participants. | At participants’ homes, NGO premises or TB facilities. | At NGO premises or at TB clinics. |
Presence of nonparticipants: Was anyone else present besides the participants and interviewer/ facilitator and note taker? | No. | No. | No. | No. |
Description of sample | People affected by TB/people with a history of TB. | |||
Dates of data collection | November – December 2019. | November 2019 – January 2020. | November – December 2021. | December 2019 – January 2020. |
Data collection | ||||
Interview guide | The interview guides were based on a generic tool, developed by the Stop TB Partnership; the interview and focus group guides were translated and adjusted to be relevant to the conductions of each participating country. | |||
Was the interview /focus group guide piloted in your country? | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. |
Repeat interviews | There were no repeat interviews. | |||
Recording: did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data? | Audio recording was used. | Audio recording was used. | Audio and video recording were used. | Audio recording was used. |
Field notes: Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group? | Notes were taken by the assistant during the focus-groups. In case of interviews notes were made during the interview and after based on the recording. | Field notes taken during the interview or focus group. | Field notes taken during the interview or focus group. | Field notes taken during the interview or focus group. |
Duration: What was the duration of the interviews? | Approximately 40 min. | Approximately 40 min. | Approximately 30–53 min. | Approximately 40–60 min. |
Duration: What was the duration of the focus group? | Approximately 70 min. | Approximately up to 120 min. | Approximately 47–90 min. | 6 Approximately 60–80 min. |
Data saturation | Was not discussed, a fixed number of interviews/focus groups was pre-defined and carried out. | |||
Transcripts returned to participants | The transcripts were not returned to participants for comment and/or correction. | |||
Domain 3: analysis and findings | ||||
Data analysis | Data was analyzed by the country-based collaborating authors and their teams according to pre-defined stages (symptom recognition, health care seeing and obtaining a correct diagnosis) and gender-related factors and barriers encountered by people with TB at each stage. | |||
Number of data coders | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Description of the coding tree | Was not provided. | |||
Derivation of themes | The main themes were identified in advance, minor themes were derived from the data. | |||
Software | No qualitative data analysis software was used. | |||
Participant checking | Participants did not provide feedback on the findings. | |||
Reporting | ||||
Quotations presented: were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings? Was each quotation identified? | Participant quotations were presented to illustrate the themes/findings; each quotation was not identified, except for gender and age. | Participant quotations were presented to illustrate the themes/findings; each quotation was not identified. | Participant quotations were presented to illustrate the themes/findings; each quotation was identified with an interviewer initials and the participant number for interviews, the location and date for focus groups. | Participant quotations were presented to illustrate the themes/findings; each quotation was not identified. |
Data and findings consistent: was there consistency between the data presented and the findings? | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. |
Clarity of major themes: were major themes clearly presented in the findings? | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. |
Clarity of minor themes: is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes? | No. | No. | No. | No. |