« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Modernising NHS Dental Services in Scotland: Analysis of Responses
CHAPTER 3: APPROACH TO ANALYSIS
One of the main challenges for the analysis of responses to the consultation was the relatively large quantity of detailed free text material submitted by professional stakeholders. Although questions for consideration by respondees were set out in Section 6 of the consultation document, many respondents provided comments on other issues raised in other Sections of the document. This required a systematic approach to collate and order all responses in an orderly fashion for analysis. A comprehensive electronic framework for identifying and recording relevant comments from respondents was developed and a number of ground-rules established to ensure responses were prepared for analysis in a consistent and sensible fashion.
Analytical Framework
An electronic Excel database was used to store and assist analysis of the responses. This database enables the storage of either free text or numerical data in a systematic manner whilst providing the flexibility for framework amendments should these be required as the work progresses.
The fields used to record the material were based largely on the questions set out in Section 6 of the consultation document. Once responses had been examined, a small number of additional fields were added to accommodate the further themes which emerged. The result was a comprehensive list of fields which formed the headings for the consultation database of responses.
Ground-Rules
Separate Responses from the Same Individual/Organisation
On occasions, one respondent may send in more than one response. This can occur, for example, when they have further thoughts on the issue and wish to make more comment. In other instances, the respondent may have simply forgotten to enclose some evidence in their first reply and they contact the Review team again with more information. Sometimes the view of one individual or organisation may be submitted more than once by virtue of their involvement in more than one organisational/professional body. For example, a consumer group may collate and submit responses on behalf of a pool of individuals who may have already responded on an individual or professional basis. On occasions, a respondent may send the same response in both electronic and hard forms.
Both the Scottish Executive consultation team and The Research Shop were alert to the possibilities of such double entries. Any identical responses were picked up by hand searching or electronic screening and removed from the exercise. Where several non-identical responses containing fresh material could be associated with one individual or organisation then these were collated into one comprehensive response and attributed to that one respondent.
Naming Respondents
After discussion with the client consultation team, the convention adopted for this consultation has been to preserve anonymity of individual respondents and organisations, by attributing their comments and quotes to the grouped respondent category to which they fit along with the addition of a unique reference number within that grouped category. In this way, individual requests for anonymity are met, but a further depth is added to the analysis by providing some contextual information about the respondent type.
Where similar views have been expressed by a small number of respondents, each of these consultees is referenced. However, where similar views have been expressed by a larger volume of respondents, then in the interests of practicalities, only a few examples of those responding are documented.
Quantitative Material
Although much of the analysis was based on descriptive free text, a limited amount of scope for quantitative analysis did exist and was exploited. Generally, this involved approximate counts of the numbers of respondents who commented on particular topics and, within these groups, the numbers of respondents holding particular views. However, because of the open nature of the consultation, which did not require people to provide a response on
every issue, the approach of many consultees in providing more general comments rather than responding to each question posed, and the way that respondents could "opt in" to their chosen response topics,
quantification of responses was not appropriate in all instances and has not been attempted for each topic. In addition, it should be noted that
any statistics quoted here cannot be extrapolated to a wider population outwith the consultation population.
Factual Accuracy
The views presented in this analysis have not been vetted in any way for factual accuracy. The opinions and comments submitted to the consultation may be based on fact or may, indeed, be based on what respondents perceive to be accurate from their perspective, but which others may interpret differently. It is important for the analysis to represent views from all perspectives. The report may, therefore, contain analysis of responses which may be factually inaccurate, but nonetheless reflect strongly held perceptions.
The following 4 Chapters document the substance of the analysis, presenting the main issues, arguments and recommendations contained in the responses. These follow broadly the ordering of issues raised in Section 6 of the consultation document.
Chapter 8 takes an overview of these in a discussion of findings.
« Previous | Contents | Next »