Skip to main content


Table 2 Qualitative sample characteristics

From: How context can impact clinical trials: a multi-country qualitative case study comparison of diagnostic biomarker test interventions

  Case study
Chiang Rai (Thailand) Yangon (Myanmar) Hanoi (Vietnam)
Timing of data collection August 2016, May 2017 December 2016 –January 2017 June – December 2015
Healthcare worker sample
 Sample size 21 HCWs (16 female/5 male) 12 HCWs (6 female/6 male) 12 HCWs (10 female/2 male)
 Sampling strategy Census (all participating HCWs) Purposive sample (at least 1 from each site)a Purposive sample (at least 1 from each site)b
 Semi-structured interviews 21 SSIs 12 SSIs 2 SSIs
 Focus group discussions None None 1 FGD (10 participants)
Patient sample
 Sample size 37 Patientsc (control and treatment; 24 female/13 male, average age 42 years) 21 Patientsc (control and treatment; 13 female/8 male, average age 37 years) 27 Patientsc (treatment group only; 23 female/4 male, average age 49 years)
 Sampling strategy Purposive sample (maximum variation)d Purposive sample (maximum variation)d Random sample with information saturatione
 Semi-structured interviews 25 SSIs (incl. 2 interviews with 2 participants) 11 SSIs (incl. 1 interview with 2 participants) 9 SSIs
 Focus group discussions 3 FGDs (3 male, 4 female; 3 female guardians) 2 FGDs (4 male, 5 female; mixed adult/guardian) 3 FGDs (5/6/7 participants; male/female/guardian)
  1. Source: Authors
  2. “Guardian” is defined as an interview participant who signed consent for a child participating in the clinical trial, or non-trial respondent who was responsible for care of a child. However, guardians reported on their own health behaviour as well as their children’s.
  3. HCW healthcare worker, SSI semi-structured interview, FDG focus group discussion
  4. aRespondents within sites selected on basis of availability
  5. bRespondents within sites comprising main study doctors who enrolled more than 80% of the centre’s total sample. At least one such doctor per site would participate in the focus group discussion. In two sites, there were two such doctors; one would participate in the focus group discussion and one each would participate in a semi-structured interview
  6. cIncluding patients and guardians of patients who were children
  7. dMaximum variation across the following variables: patients’ study groups (pre-intervention/control/treatment group), antibiotic prescription (yes/no), sex (male/female), age (guardian of a child below 18 years/18–49/50+), education (below/above primary education)
  8. eSaturation criterion: no new themes arose from two consecutive focus group discussions/semi-structured interviews