Gathering uncertainties
Methods used (e.g. survey, focus groups, interviews): A survey was made available in English, Welsh and easy read. It was available online in the English and Welsh languages. The easy read version was available in hard copy only. A small number of focus groups were held.
| Number | % | |
| Total respondents (across all methods) | 927 | 100 |
| Total patients and carers and carers | 328* | 30 |
| Total health and care professionals | 721* | 66 |
| Total other** responses | 38* | 4 |
| Total number of original uncertainties submitted | 2193 | 100 |
| Original uncertainties in scope | 1255*** | |
| Original uncertainties out of scope | 1053 |
Interim prioritisation
Methods used (eg survey, focus groups, interviews): An online survey was available in the English and Welsh languages. The impact of COVID-19 meant that we held some focus groups online (using the Zoom platform).
| Number | % | |
| Total number of indicative questions (answered & unanswered) | 66 | 100 |
| Number of verified answered questions | 0 | - |
| Number of verified unanswered questions | 66 | 100 |
| Number of verified unanswered questions included in the interim prioritisation | 66 | |
| Total respondents (across all methods) | 1140 | 100 |
| Total patients and carers | 105 | 10 |
| Total health and care professionals | 1020 | 89 |
| Total other** responses | 15 | 1 |
| Number of questions taken to final workshop | 18 |
Final priority setting workshop
| Number | % | |
| Total participants*** | 19 | 95 |
| Total patients and carers | 9 | 45 |
| Total health and care professionals | 10 | 50 |
Notes:
*Respondents were asked to mark the main box(es) that best described them. Some respondents ticked up to 3 boxes and therefore the total number of responses is greater than 927 (1087).
**We allowed people to identify as ‘a person with a different interest in this area’.
***Please note, on the grouped list of summary questions (with number of respondents for each question) – the number added up to 1096. The figure of 1255 on this form is different for a number of reasons:
- Some questions were posed as two or more questions, but they were fundamentally linked (so the meaning would have been lost if they were separated). So, on the main spreadsheet of questions used for data analysis, these questions were counted as 2 (or more).However, if they were out of scope, on the ‘Out of Scope Questions List’ the questions were copied and pasted as they were originally presented, and therefore appear to be and were counted as only one question. This was done for the sake of maintaining clarity of the question on the out of scope list.
- Some ‘questions’ did not actually pose a question, but instead made a statement. These were generally identified as out of scope. On the main spreadsheet of questions they were not counted as a question, but had to be counted as a ‘question’ on the out of scope list due to the quantification requirement of the PSP engagement summary report.
- Some questions contained elements that meant they could be grouped under more than one question. Therefore, they are one question, but counted as two when added under more than one question grouping.
- Where people self-identified in more than one participant category (eg. carer AND occupational therapist), this meant that one participant could be counted more than once. To avoid confusion, the data management spreadsheet includes an indication of which participants asked questions related to each summary question, but not a full numbers breakdown.
**** one invited participant did not attend on the day of the final workshop.