Socio-economic background ranged from lower to upper middle SES.Zegwaard et al. BMC Psychiatry 2013, 13:103 http:www.biomedcentral.com1471-244X13Page three ofTable 1 Demographic and background facts of caregivers (N=19)Age in years Sort of relationship with care receiver Companion Child Buddy or Relative Self reported wellness difficulties of caregivers Physical challenges Depression Duration of care (years) 11 1 M=24, Range=2-40 12 (male 6) 3 (male two) four (male two) M=66, SD=9.Information collectionThe caregivers have been interviewed through 1 face-to-face interview. The interviews have been audio-taped and lasted in between 60 and 90 minutes. A topic list (see Extra file 1) based on literature to scenarios that could influence the caregiving burden provided direction towards the interviews. Caregivers had been asked to describe specifics of events, situations and conversations using the care-receiver, connected to caregiving in their daily life. To provide the caregiver the opportunity to speak as freely as possible through the interview, it was sought to make a pleasant atmosphere. Because of this the interviews have been conducted at a place recommended by the caregiver (largely their own property), and within the care receiver’s absence. The interviews followed the organic course of conversation. The subject list was used to introduce these topics that weren’t introduced spontaneously by the interviewee. Concerns were asked to have in to extra detail about what was brought in by the interviewee. Field notes concerning impressions gained through the interview and information and facts given right after the tape recorder was turned off have been noted immediately afterwards. This process generated sensitive and individual interview material on the influence of caregiving on the daily life on the respondents.Information analysisfurther interviews have been carried out, and PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310042 the established concepts and themes have been alternate confronted with the input of new material. Through meetings M.I.Z. and M.G. continuously compared their interpretations from the information and worked towards consensus about the interpretation of attainable meanings. Commonalities, differences, and explanations for differences among interviews have been discussed for a far more thorough understanding from the caregivers’ viewpoint and experiences. Comparing and contrasting components inside and among instances enabled disclosure of what was shared and what was different. A reflection on this analysis was described, text components have been coded plus a code tree was developed. Coding was supported by the software program program MAXqda. For the purposes of improved researcher triangulation, a third researcher (M.J.A.) was involved within the evaluation. She critically questioned the conclusions primarily based on the interpretation with the information. This course of action offers an external check on the research. For the duration of these meetings all 3 worked collectively in checking the interpretation on the data against existing information and new materials. As such we continuously verified no matter whether interpretations corresponded towards the original interviews. New codes 
were added and also the code-tree was restructured in accordance with theoretical insights. Coding and notion description have been performed Calcipotriol Impurity C web simultaneously, facilitating the interpretative analytical method that finest relates to the knowledge from the caregivers. Ideas were additional categorized and main themes emerged [27,28]. Relations in between categories and in between themes had been established and categories developed.The analyses have been performed inside a cyclical approach in which coding and consider.