Methods

Participants

Our purposive participant sample was recruited from two cancer survivorship support groups run by the Cancer Society, specialist oncologists and a tertiary oncology treatment centre. Health professionals (specialist oncology nurses, volunteers working in oncology services, general practitioners, practice nurses and domiciliary nurses) at the Society and each of these units gave potential participants information sheets about the project that asked them to contact us if they were interested in participating.

Data collection

Over a period of two months, from October-December 2016, we conducted single occasion semi-structured interviews with the cancer survivors that focused on the participants’ experiences of living beyond cancer. The participants could follow their train of thought and include any material they thought was relevant. These interviews took place in their homes and lasted approximately 60 minutes. Interviews were recorded and both researchers kept reflective and descriptive field notes. Interviews were transcribed by a contracted transcriber who had signed a confidentiality agreement.

Data Analysis

Our reading of the transcripts was naive, prolonged, contemplative and empathetic as we wanted to be open to all potentials and possibilities. We read each transcript in its entirety several times to develop an overall impression and then divided the text into units of meaning. After all possible meanings and contextual aspects were identified (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) we grouped the units of meaning into tables under overarching headings. Each group was then separately examined and arranged into categories. Subthemes were identified, sorted into tables and analysed for themes and overarching themes. This process continued until we understood and could substantiate the emergent themes.

Rigour

Both researchers analysed all the transcripts and cross-checked each other’s analysis (Tong, Sainsbury & Craig, 2007). We discussed any differences and then either developed a new theme or allocated the data to an agreed code. Although we reached saturation (where no new data emerged) after analysing ten transcripts, we continued the analysis over the remaining four transcripts to ensure that this was indeed the case. As we are both registered nurses we had to be mindful of not imposing our professional views on the views of the participants so that useful insights were overlooked. We kept reflective logs and involved a lay researcher in the project to challenge our interpretations and assumptions, especially as none of the participants wanted to review their transcripts. (Yardley, 2000). Given that the researchers and participants were of European ethnicity we also involved a researcher of different ethnicity, again to challenge our interpretations and assumptions.

Ethics

Our study was approved the University Human Ethics Committee. Participants were provided with information sheets explaining the study and our expectations should they decide to participate. They were considered a study participant once they had given their written consent indicating their understanding of the study, what was required of them, how their confidentiality would be protected (through the allocation to codes to transcripts and field notes, confidentiality agreements for transcribers, and anonymised publications), and that they could withdraw at any time and have any data removed if they wished. Participants were given the opportunity review their manuscripts. No one chose to do so.