Nvivo 12.0 pro

Focus groups were professionally transcribed verbatim in Spanish. Final transcripts were de-identified and reviewed in the original Spanish for accuracy by two team members (GP;GC). NVivo 12.0 Pro (QSR International, Australia) was used to manage coding. We used content and thematic analysis to analyze transcripts (Miles et al., 2013 ). GP and GC created a preliminary codebook based on the interview guide and on emergent themes based on line by line coding of initial transcripts. We implemented recurring team debriefing meetings and member checks to ensure trustworthiness, the qualitative equivalent of reliability and validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). Team members met weekly during data collection to review transcripts and discuss coding. Member checks provided the opportunity for team members to validate themes emerging from the data. Codes were organized into categories through a consensus process to reflect a range of subthemes, and to characterize both confirmatory and contradictory narratives (Allen, 2017 ). The final coding schema and subsequent themes were reviewed and discussed by the entire research team to reach consensus. External validation of the final results were provided by a focus group participant. This study follows the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Health Research (Tong et al., 2007 (link)).