Many of the themes that were expected to be raised during analysis had been identified in the literature review [14] which explored the potential effects of seeing and sharing experiences online. The secondary analysis sought to

gain a deeper understanding of existing (‘anticipated’) themes found in the literature whilst being mindful of any new (‘emergent’) concepts which arose. Indexing took place within NVIVO and charting was carried out using EXCEL. Charting the data involved lifting the data verbatim to facilitate the use of participants own words when forming items. Themes were checked for applicability across three condition groups PF-02341066 clinical trial and three different types of health websites to ensure its suitability for inclusion in a generic item pool. Two sources of data were used to check the themes identified for the measure: (1) Focus group transcripts (n = 16) from research carried out on trust and online health information in Northumbria University (see [23] for methodology) and; (2) Comment forms (n = 29) completed by members of

an internet user panel consisting of lay persons using local primary health care services. The user panel comment forms asked people to list the potential advantages and disadvantages of using the internet for health information. Comments were collated in a single document to compare issues raised with the themes previously identified. Using more than one data source provided ‘data triangulation’ to enhance rigor Selleckchem PLX4032 within the research [24]. Each theme identified through the

analysis was represented by relevant statements (in the form of verbatim quotes) from the HERG transcripts. Statements were arranged according to the theme in a tabulated summary which identified the health condition from where it originated. This allowed each statement to be traced to its origin throughout the iterative process. Statements which could be answered by people across health conditions (i.e. generic statements) were identified. The authors recast statements as questionnaire items and removed duplicate Staurosporine in vivo items. Items were reviewed by an advisory board consisting of six clinicians and academics with interests in the field of e-health. Reviewers were asked whether items were answerable to those exposed to websites containing: (1) experiential health information, (2) standard ‘facts and figures’ health information and; (3) patients online health forums. Reviewers were also asked to comment on whether items were suitable for individuals who were viewing a website which was aimed at: (1) long term conditions, (2) health promotion activities and; (3) carers.