This readme file was generated on 2023-02-17 by katie Newby GENERAL INFORMATION Title of Dataset: Deidentified transcripts of focus groups and interviews and thematic aggregation of excerpted text (Excel coding framework with quotations) supporting ‘Adaptations to the Welsh National Exercise Referral Scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study exploring the experiences of service users and providers and supplementary out-of-pocket costs analysis’ (PHIRST NERS project) Author/Principal Investigator Information Name: Dr Katie Newby ORCID: 0000-0002-9348-0116 Institution: University of Hertfordshire Address: Department of Psychology, Sport and Geography Room 1H273, C.P. Snow Building Life and Medical Sciences College Lane Campus University of Hertfordshire Hatfield AL10 9AB Email: k.newby@herts.ac.uk Author/Associate or Co-investigator Information Name: Prof Katherine Brown ORCID:0000-0003-2472-5754 Institution: University of Hertfordshire Address: Department of Psychology, Sport and Geography Room 1H273, C.P. Snow Building Life and Medical Sciences College Lane Campus University of Hertfordshire Hatfield AL10 9AB Email: k.brown25@herts.ac.uk Date of data collection: Between April and December 2021 Geographic location of data collection: online Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR; Award ID: NIHR131573; Project ID: NIHR134153). SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: All rights reserved Links to publications that cite or use the data: Currently under review by BMC Public Health Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: None Links/relationships to ancillary data sets: None Was data derived from another source? No Recommended citation for this dataset: Newby, K., Howlett, N., Wagner, A. P., Lloyd, N., Freethy, I., Bontoft, C., Fakoya, O., Jackson, S., Jackson, C., Wills, W., McKibben, M. A., Petherick, A., & Brown, K. E. (2023). Deidentified transcripts of focus groups and interviews and thematic aggregation of excerpted text (Excel coding framework with quotations) supporting ‘Adaptations to the Welsh National Exercise Referral Scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study exploring the experiences of service users and providers and supplementary out-of-pocket costs analysis’ (PHIRST NERS project). UH Research Archive. https://doi.org/10.18745/DS.26105 DATA & FILE OVERVIEW Two sets of files: 1. A zipped folder titled 'Interview and focus group transcripts' Numbered list of anonymised interview and focus group transcripts (pdf files). File names of interviews include the participant number. Participant numbers are also displayed within each file (top) for both the interviews and focus groups. File List: Interview 1 F10 Interview 2 M11 Interview 3 M12 Interview 4 F12 Interview 5 M13 Interview 6 F13 Interview 7 M14 Interview 8 F14 Interview 9 F15 Interview 10 F16 Interview 11 F17 Interview 12 M15 Interview 13 F11 Interview 14 M16 Interview 15 M17 Interview 16 F18 Interview 17 F19 Interview 18 M18 Interview 19 F20 Interview 20 M19 Interview 21 F21 Interview 22 F22 Focus Gp 1 Focus Gp 2 Focus Gp 3 2. A zipped folder titled 'Thematic aggregation of excerpted text (Excel)' Four framework matrices generated through Framework Analysis. File List (Excel files): Framework matrix one - engagement and retention Framework matrix one - outcomes Framework matrix one - quality and safety Framework matrix one - uptake Are there multiple versions of the dataset? No METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: Protocol available via research regsitry: https://www.researchregistry.com (#7842). Research aim: The aim of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to uptake and engagement of the Welsh National Exercise Referral Scheme (NERS) when delivered in face-to-face and virtual formats, and to examine the cost to service users of engaging with scheme in these different ways. Maximum variation sampling was used to recruit participants. Interviews with service users (n=21) and one person who declined the service, and three focus groups with service providers (n=19), were conducted. Data were subjected to Framework analysis. Methods for processing the data: Framework analysis to create a thematic aggregation of excerpted text. Qualitative data were analysed using Framework Analysis. NVivo 12 software was used to assist with data management, coding, and indexing. All transcripts were coded in line with an agreed coding framework. Microsoft Excel was then used to create a framework matrix for the combined focus group and interview data with illustrative quotes included in the relevant cells of the matrix to represent each code (situated within themes/sub-themes). Instrument- or software-specific information needed to interpret the data: data are presented in Microsoft Excel. Each row denotes a case (participant) and each column a qualitative code. Standards and calibration information, if appropriate: Not applicable Environmental/experimental conditions: Not applicable Describe any quality-assurance procedures performed on the data: triangulation of two data sources (interviews with service users and focus groups with service providers; clear exposition of methods of data collection analysis (in registed protocol and paper under review); research design (maximum variation sampling) used to recruit participants with a wide range of expereinces and pespectives People involved with sample collection, processing, analysis and/or submission: One-to-one interviews were conducted by a member of the research team whereas all focus groups were co-facilitated. In two of the three focus groups, co-facilitation was by a NERS coordinator, trained in qualitative data collection methods. Semi-structured schedules were used to guide focus groups and interviews.Focus group data were analysed first. Two researchers (KN and NH) independently coded all three transcripts. In the first instance, both researchers coded a single transcript, aiming to identify positive and negative views or experiences of virtual delivery (or, conversely, of face-to-face delivery). The researchers then met to review their developing analytical frameworks. As there was good agreement in sub-codes identified, coding of the remaining transcripts took place. After coding the final two transcripts, the two researchers met again for consensus discussion. The two frameworks were compared, and decisions made about which codes should be retained (including the names and definitions applied) and the text that should be indexed against them. Next the interview data were incorporated into the existing analytical framework. First, five transcripts were independently coded by the same two researchers using the analytical framework developed through the focus group analysis. As before, the researchers met to review the coding and agreed some additional codes to be added to the framework. A single researcher (KN) then proceeded to code all remaining transcripts using this framework.