Thesis

69 Evaluation of MCD sessions participants and facilitators from the single-MCD-evaluation forms received open codes, sorted by the prearranged classification of general evaluations, dialogue of participants, conversation method, and organizational conditions. This classification was decided upon, together with the stakeholders, at the start of the research. We made a ‘constant comparison’ of indicators, codes, and interpretations of several researchers (Green & Thorogood, 2014). Our qualitative analyses of 1 open question of the survey-after-theseries had a division in analyzed answers in 3 groups based on an earlier closed question with an overall evaluation of being 1) positive, 2) neutral, or 3) negative. The answers in these 3 categories also received an open coding in MAXQDA®. We conducted quantitative analyses via SPSS, version 26. We chose to present mean scores instead of medians since mean scores a) give more detailed information when using a 1–5-point scale and b) allow multilevel analysis, which was necessary. For the mean scores of the participants per single MCD session, we conducted a multilevel analysis that accounted for: a) the same MCD session was evaluated by multiple participants, b) there were multiple sessions of the same team, and c) there were multiple teams within the same professional group. For our analysis based on the differences in professional disciplines, the multilevel analysis accounted for multiple teams within the same professional group. For the mean scores of all facilitators, based on the assumption that facilitators differ per team and facilitators may score differently, we took into account: a) the MCD session, b) the team of the participants, and c) the professional discipline. The case-managers re-integration services were chosen as the reference group since it had the highest number of participants. The quantitative analyses of the surveyafter-the-series consisted of frequency analyses and bar charts showing percentages. We used ANOVA tests with crosstabs, in which items were plotted against the discipline of participants. We analyzed whether evaluation scores change over time; for this quantitative analysis of the influence of the number of sessions, we defined 3 groups: A) 1-3 sessions, B) 4-6 sessions, and C) 7-10 sessions per team. In a multilevel analysis (adjusted for participants of the same MCD session, same team, and same professional group), we compared scores of A, B, and C in the single-MCD-evaluation forms. 3

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw