Common use of Data Collection Procedures Clause in Contracts

Data Collection Procedures. As determined by the participants, 10 interviews were conducted at the clinic, 16 interviews were conducted at the participants’ home, and one interview was conducted at another hospital where the participant was receiving outpatient treatment. All interviews were completed in a single session, though prior to each interview I gave the participant the option of splitting the interview into two sessions. Except for two, all interviews were completed with me and an additional interviewer, an African American retired nurse who had worked most recently as an organizer for a residential community. Both interviewers went through training in qualitative interviewing prior to study interviews and then practiced interviewing volunteers who agreed to be taped for educational purposes. The practice interview tapes as well as the study tapes were reviewed by both interviewers in order to critique the interviewing techniques. The two interviewers exchanged feedback throughout the study in order to improve the interviewing techniques. At the interview appointment, we first reviewed the informed consent procedures with the participant. The entire consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Authorization Form were read out loud (See Appendix C and D). Then the interviewer verbally confirmed that the participant fully understood the procedures and purpose of the study and was still willing to participate. After introducing myself and the other interviewer, I verbally administered the demographic questionnaire (see Appendix E) and the ESAS. This second administration of the ESAS was used to evaluate the current symptom state and to serve as reference for the interview. After the paperwork and instruments were completed, the interview began and the recording started. The recorded interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes on average with a range of 22 to 82 minutes. An interview guide, based on a literature review, served as a template during the interview process. All interviews were audio-taped, two recorders being used simultaneously as a preventive measure against the possibility of data loss. Both interviewers shared the responsibilities of the interview. In general, both interviewers focused on the participant, actively listening while asking questions and probing for more information as needed. I usually began the interview while the interviewer documented procedural details, such as a description of the environment and the appearance of the participant, including clothes, body language and any signs of discomfort or distress. These notes were later used to remind me of the context of the interview and provided detail to the transcripts. The interview guide was intended to orient the participant’s narrative towards detailed symptom description, including how symptoms significantly influence daily life. This study viewed individuals with cancer as experts with regard to their own care and individual symptom management. While the strategies delineated in the interview guide could be either prescribed by health care professionals or initiated by the individuals themselves, the study acknowledged the individual with cancer as the authority on the implementation of those strategies in his /her own unique situation. Study participants also gave detailed accounts of situation-specific elements that either obstructed or enhanced symptom self-management. There were only two instances of deviation from the study protocol. Two interviews were completed without the second interviewer. These interviews took place toward the end of the study and the quality and content of the interview did not differ from that of the other interviews. All interviews took place alone with the participant except for one conducted in the participant’s home, with a friend/roommate seated on the couch next to the participant for most of the interview, massaging the woman’s legs. At the conclusion of the interviews, we thanked the participants for their time and willingness to share their experience and compensated the participants for their input and time. As recommended by the CAB, the incentive included a $20 gift card from a local grocery store and a coupon for free parking at the clinic or a coupon redeemable for two rides on public transportation. Overall, the approach to the recruitment and the interview processes accommodated the needs of the participants and acknowledged that they were the experts with regard to their own care. It is well documented that as a research methodology the use of qualitative interviews with individuals with advanced cancer experiencing symptoms requires special attention and facilitation to ensure that no harm is caused (Xxxxxx, Back, & Xxxxxxx, 2003). At the conclusion of each interview the participant was asked about the interview experience; most responded that it had been enjoyable. No one gave a negative response; the least positive response was that “it was OK”. No participants said the interviews caused distress of any kind. Some participants expressed appreciation for the chance to talk freely and share a deeply personal experience. Studies that have examined terminally ill individuals’ experience of participating in qualitative research similarly report positive feedback (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx, & Xxxxxxx, 2004; Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, & Xxxxxxxxx, 2008).

Data Collection Procedures. As determined The data collection process was a set of steps, outlined by Xxxxxxxx (2014) that should be followed to collect data seamlessly and efficiently. Before beginning my data collection, I developed all the participantsnecessary design protocols and instruments (interview questions, 10 interviews an observation form and invitation and informed consent letters). The first step was to identify the influential gatekeepers who would allow me access to the research sites and interaction with potential participants (Hay, 2000). They usually were conducted principals and vice-principals at the clinic, 16 interviews were conducted at the participants’ home, and one interview was conducted at another hospital where the participant was receiving outpatient treatmentschools. All interviews were completed in a single session, though prior I contacted them by telephone to each interview I gave the participant the option of splitting the interview into two sessions. Except for two, all interviews were completed with me and an additional interviewer, an African American retired nurse who had worked most recently as an organizer arrange for a residential communitymeeting to discuss my research and answer their questions. Both interviewers went through training Showing them key research information (e.g., the letter to gatekeepers and informed consent form) on paper helped them understand an overview of the study. Although most people in qualitative interviewing prior Malaysia can read, speak and write in English, I had all the letters translated into Chinese: the letter to study interviews gatekeepers, the letter of invitation and then practiced interviewing volunteers who agreed to be taped for educational purposes. The practice interview tapes as well as the study tapes were reviewed by both interviewers in order to critique the interviewing techniques. The two interviewers exchanged feedback throughout the study in order to improve the interviewing techniques. At the interview appointment, we first reviewed the informed consent procedures letter. Once I received the gatekeeprs’ permission (Appendix A) to conduct my research at their schools, the second step was to have an informal face-to-face dialogue with several teachers to identify the most suitable candidates for participating in my research. Having given them all the important information about my research, I explained some parts and answered their questions during the preliminary informal meeting. I then requested the most suitable teachers, who met the criteria, by the letter of invitation (Appendix B), to participate in my research voluntarily. According to Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx-Xxxxx (2003) it is called ‘‘individualized communication’’ (p. 8). After they agreed to participate in my study, they were asked to sign the informed consent form (Appendix C). The third step was conducting a semi-structured interview with the participantteachers. Each interview lasted about 40 minutes in a quiet place, chosen by the teachers, on the school’s premises. I was aware that their timetables were full, so I asked them for the most convenient day and time to meet. I also recorded the teachers’ interviews using a voice recording application on my telephone or iPad after asking for their permission. The entire consent next step was document analysis; the documents were related to collaborative projects and Health Insurance Portability were in the form of meeting minutes. They were studied and Accountability Act evaluated (HIPAAXxxxx, 2009) Authorization Form were read out loud (See Appendix C and D)after the interviews to compare the teachers’ answers against the documented information. Then The fifth step involved observing collaborative meetings on a project of five participants; for some unknown reason, one did not respond to my observation request. I observed each teacher once for about 15-30 minutes. The final step involved contacting several teachers by WhatsApp to clarify their answers or ask additional questions. It was useful to contact them again because I obtained xxxxxx answers which made my data analysis process smoother. The data collection process took two months, from December 2021 to January 2022. I only had one delay with School B; the interviewer verbally confirmed vice-principal contacted me a week later, although I was promised that the participant fully understood meeting would occur earlier. In return, the procedures participants learned more, by reading the research results first- hand, about the investigated phenomenon. I also explained that this study would add to the body of academic knowledge for Sabah and purpose may attract the attention of policy-makers who in the future, could consider the study and was still willing to participate. After introducing myself and the other interviewerfindings when, I verbally administered the demographic questionnaire (see Appendix E) and the ESAS. This second administration of the ESAS was used to evaluate the current symptom state and to serve as reference for the interview. After the paperwork and instruments were completedexample, the interview began and the recording started. The recorded interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes on average with a range of 22 to 82 minutes. An interview guide, based on a literature review, served as a template during the interview process. All interviews were audio-taped, two recorders being used simultaneously as a preventive measure against the possibility of data loss. Both interviewers shared the responsibilities of the interview. In general, both interviewers focused on the participant, actively listening while asking questions and probing for more information as needed. I usually began the interview while the interviewer documented procedural details, such as a description of the environment and the appearance of the participant, including clothes, body language and any signs of discomfort or distress. These notes were later used to remind me of the context of the interview and provided detail to the transcripts. The interview guide was intended to orient the participant’s narrative towards detailed symptom description, including how symptoms significantly influence daily life. This study viewed individuals with cancer as experts with regard to their own care and individual symptom management. While the strategies delineated in the interview guide could be either prescribed by health care professionals or initiated by the individuals themselves, the study acknowledged the individual with cancer as the authority on the implementation of those strategies in his /her own unique situation. Study participants also gave detailed accounts of situation-specific elements that either obstructed or enhanced symptom self-management. There were only two instances of deviation from the study protocol. Two interviews were completed without the second interviewer. These interviews took place toward the end of the study and the quality and content of the interview did not differ from that of the other interviews. All interviews took place alone with the participant except for one conducted in the participant’s home, with a friend/roommate seated on the couch next to the participant for most of the interview, massaging the woman’s legs. At the conclusion of the interviews, we thanked the participants for their time and willingness to share their experience and compensated the participants for their input and time. As recommended by the CAB, the incentive included a $20 gift card from a local grocery store and a coupon for free parking at the clinic or a coupon redeemable for two rides on public transportation. Overall, the approach to the recruitment and the interview processes accommodated the needs of the participants and acknowledged that they were the experts with regard to their own care. It is well documented that as a research methodology the use of qualitative interviews with individuals with advanced cancer experiencing symptoms requires special attention and facilitation to ensure that no harm is caused (Xxxxxx, Back, & Xxxxxxx, 2003). At the conclusion of each interview the participant was asked about the interview experience; most responded that it had been enjoyable. No one gave a negative response; the least positive response was that “it was OK”. No participants said the interviews caused distress of any kind. Some participants expressed appreciation for the chance to talk freely and share a deeply personal experience. Studies that have examined terminally ill individuals’ experience of participating in qualitative research similarly report positive feedback (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx, & Xxxxxxx, 2004; Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, & Xxxxxxxxx, 2008)designing professional development courses.

Data Collection Procedures. As determined by Data collection procedures started with the process of ethics application submission, and then, in a month continued with getting ethics approval (see Appendix B for timeline of the study). After getting the approval to conduct the research on November 7, 2018, an introductory letter was sent from NUGSE to a gatekeeper (a school principal of the selected NIS school) on asking a permission to conduct a research in the selected research site. The letter mentioned the details concerning the research purpose, the role of participants, 10 possible risks and benefits of the present research. Then, I met the principal of this NIS school to introduce the details of the research questions. The next, after receiving the permission from a gatekeeper I started recruiting the participants according to the criteria which were developed in advance. Thus, I selected the participants who met the criteria and invited teachers for individual interviews and focus group discussions. The participants were informed about their voluntary participation and all details, rules and procedures of the research through the informed consent letter. The time and place for both individual and focus group interviews were negotiated in advance. In addition, the interviews were conducted at when it was comfortable for participants for the clinicsake of creating the atmosphere of trust and relieve stress. Finally, 16 the interviews were recorded and transcribed manually in order not to lose or confuse any details of collected data. Lesson observations were conducted at after interviews with the participants’ home, and one interview was conducted at another hospital where the participant was receiving outpatient treatment. All interviews were completed in a single session, though prior to each interview I gave the participant the option of splitting the interview into two sessions. Except for two, all interviews were completed with me and an additional interviewer, an African American retired nurse who had worked most recently as an organizer for a residential community. Both interviewers went through training in qualitative interviewing prior to study interviews and then practiced interviewing volunteers who agreed to be taped for educational purposes. The practice interview tapes as well as the study tapes were reviewed by both interviewers main participants in order to critique the interviewing techniques. The two interviewers exchanged feedback throughout the study get accustomed to participate in order to improve the interviewing techniques. At the interview appointment, we first reviewed the informed consent procedures this research and feel comfortable with the participantresearcher. The entire consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Authorization Form were read out loud (See Appendix C and D). Then the interviewer verbally confirmed that the participant fully understood the procedures and purpose of the study and was still willing to participate. After introducing myself and the other interviewerMoreover, I verbally administered got permission from the demographic questionnaire (see Appendix E) main participants in advance to observe their lessons in compliance with their availability, and the ESASwhen it was comfortable for them. This second administration Thus, I have conducted one lesson observation of the ESAS was used to evaluate the current symptom state and to serve as reference for the interview. After the paperwork and instruments were completed, the interview began and the recording started. The recorded interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes on average with a range of 22 to 82 minutes. An interview guide, based on a literature review, served as a template during the interview process. All interviews were audio-taped, two recorders being used simultaneously as a preventive measure against the possibility of data loss. Both interviewers shared the responsibilities of the interview. In general, both interviewers focused on the each main participant, actively listening while asking questions and probing for more information as needed’s lessons. I usually began the interview while the interviewer documented procedural details, such as was a description of the environment non-participant observer and the appearance of the participant, including clothes, body language and any signs of discomfort or distress. These notes were later used to remind me of the context of the interview and provided detail to the transcripts. The interview guide was intended to orient the participant’s narrative towards detailed symptom description, including how symptoms significantly influence daily life. This study viewed individuals with cancer as experts with regard to their own care and individual symptom management. While the strategies delineated in the interview guide could be either prescribed by health care professionals or initiated by the individuals themselves, the study acknowledged the individual with cancer as the authority on the implementation of those strategies in his /her own unique situation. Study participants also gave detailed accounts of situation-specific elements that either obstructed or enhanced symptom self-management. There were only two instances of deviation from the study protocol. Two interviews were completed without the second interviewer. These interviews took place toward sat at the end of the study classroom in order not to distract both teacher and students. During both lessons I observed what approaches to assessment newly hired teachers apply in their assessment practices, and whether the quality and content of the interview did not differ information from that of the other interviews. All interviews took place alone with the participant except for one conducted in the participant’s home, with a friend/roommate seated on the couch next to the participant for most of the interview, massaging the woman’s legs. At the conclusion of the interviews, we thanked the participants for their time and willingness to share their experience and compensated the participants for their input and time. As recommended by the CAB, the incentive included a $20 gift card from a local grocery store and a coupon for free parking at the clinic or a coupon redeemable for two rides on public transportation. Overall, the approach to the recruitment and the interview processes accommodated the needs of the participants and acknowledged that they were the experts with regard to their own care. It is well documented that as a research methodology the use of qualitative interviews with individuals with advanced cancer experiencing symptoms requires special attention and facilitation to ensure that no harm is caused (Xxxxxx, Back, & Xxxxxxx, 2003). At the conclusion of each interview the participant was asked about the interview experience; most responded that it had been enjoyable. No one gave a negative response; the least positive response was that “it was OK”. No participants said the interviews caused distress of any kind. Some participants expressed appreciation for the chance to talk freely and share a deeply personal experience. Studies that have examined terminally ill individuals’ experience of participating in qualitative research similarly report positive feedback (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx, & Xxxxxxx, 2004; Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, & Xxxxxxxxx, 2008)correspond with what I saw on practice.

Data Collection Procedures. As determined by The procedure of data collection started from obtaining permission for research from NUGSE Research Committee. In the beginning, it was planned to send an official letter to Astana universities’ rectors to draw participants for the study. In that case, participants’ supervisors would need to provide their permission to access participants, 10 and it would not guarantee anonymity and confidentiality for interviewees. Therefore, when the study obtained approval for research, an advertisement for potential participants’ was sent via What’s App (see Appendix E). After two participants were found via social networks, I asked them if they know somebody who can contribute to the study. Overall, eight participants were recruited by snowball sampling method. It was planned to conduct face-to-face interviews were conducted with participants since it is considered as the best way to gather detailed data because it allows interpreting verbal and non-verbal cues (Xxxxxxxxx, 2003). However, most of the respondents insisted on telephone interviews due to their busy schedules. According to Xxxxxxxx (2014), a telephone interview is the best way to contact participants when they are not available face-to-face. Telephone-based communication made it easier for participants to share their perception because there was no strong trust between an interviewee and interviewer. The drawback is that I could not see their facial expression; however, I could interpret perceptions from a participant’s tone and tenor of the ongoing interview. I also developed an interview protocol that helped in the process of data collection. Interview protocol consisted of two parts, where perceptions of young female faculty members on relationships at the clinicworkplace, 16 interviews were conducted at the participants’ homedifference due to age and gender, and one interview informal mentorship was conducted at another hospital where the participant was receiving outpatient treatment. All interviews were completed in a single session, though prior to each interview I gave the participant the option of splitting the interview into two sessions. Except for two, all interviews were completed with me and an additional interviewer, an African American retired nurse who had worked most recently as an organizer for a residential community. Both interviewers went through training in qualitative interviewing prior to study interviews and then practiced interviewing volunteers who agreed to be taped for educational purposes. The practice interview tapes as well as the study tapes were reviewed by both interviewers in order to critique the interviewing techniques. The two interviewers exchanged feedback throughout the study in order to improve the interviewing techniques. At the interview appointment, we first reviewed the informed consent procedures with the participant. The entire consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act discussed (HIPAA) Authorization Form were read out loud (See see Appendix C and DA). Then Before conducting an interview, I explained the interviewer verbally confirmed that the participant fully understood the procedures and purpose of the study again and was still willing asked participants to participate. After introducing myself and the other interviewer, I verbally administered the demographic questionnaire sign a consent form without writing their names if they agreed (see Appendix E) and the ESASB). This second administration of the ESAS was used After informed consent forms were signed, I asked for permission to evaluate the current symptom state and to serve as reference for record the interview. After Eight interviews were conducted by telephone, while two of the paperwork respondents agreed to meet in person. Eight interviews were conducted in Russian, two in Kazakh. Nine interviews were recorded with participants’ permission on the cellphone using a particular application which allowed to record telephone and instruments regular dialogues. Recordings were completed, transferred under pseudonyms on the interview began laptop and the recording started. The recorded interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes on average protected with a range of 22 password. One participant did not want to 82 minutes. An interview guidebe recorded, based on a literature reviewand therefore, served as a template notes using pseudonyms were taken during the interview process. All interviews were audio-taped, two recorders being used simultaneously as a preventive measure against the possibility of data loss. Both interviewers shared the responsibilities of the interview. In general, both interviewers focused on the participant, actively listening while asking questions and probing for more information as needed. I usually began the interview while the interviewer documented procedural details, such as a description of the environment and the appearance of the participant, including clothes, body language and any signs of discomfort or distress. These notes were later used to remind me of the context of the interview and provided detail to the transcripts. The interview guide was intended to orient the participant’s narrative towards detailed symptom description, including how symptoms significantly influence daily life. This study viewed individuals with cancer as experts with regard to their own care and individual symptom management. While the strategies delineated in the interview guide could be either prescribed by health care professionals or initiated by the individuals themselves, the study acknowledged the individual with cancer as the authority on the implementation of those strategies in his /her own unique situation. Study participants also gave detailed accounts of situation-specific elements that either obstructed or enhanced symptom self-management. There were only two instances of deviation from the study protocol. Two interviews were completed without the second interviewer. These interviews took place toward the end of the study and the quality and content of the interview did not differ from that of the other interviews. All interviews took place alone with the participant except for one conducted in the participant’s home, with a friend/roommate seated on the couch next to the participant for most of the interview, massaging the woman’s legs. At the conclusion of the interviews, we thanked the participants for their time and willingness to share their experience and compensated the participants for their input and time. As recommended by the CAB, the incentive included a $20 gift card from a local grocery store and a coupon for free parking at the clinic or a coupon redeemable for two rides on public transportation. Overall, the approach to the recruitment and the interview processes accommodated the needs of the participants and acknowledged that they were the experts with regard to their own care. It is well documented that as a research methodology the use of qualitative interviews with individuals with advanced cancer experiencing symptoms requires special attention and facilitation to ensure that no harm is caused (Xxxxxx, Back, & Xxxxxxx, 2003). At the conclusion of each interview the participant was asked about the interview experience; most responded that it had been enjoyable. No one gave a negative response; the least positive response was that “it was OK”. No participants said the interviews caused distress of any kind. Some participants expressed appreciation for the chance to talk freely and share a deeply personal experience. Studies that have examined terminally ill individuals’ experience of participating in qualitative research similarly report positive feedback (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx, & Xxxxxxx, 2004; Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, & Xxxxxxxxx, 2008).