Methodological considerations
CVD, EVENTS, MINOR
Negotiation of categories among the authors, researcher triangulation within the research group and peer-debriefing with research nurses, as well as the negative case analysis, aimed at increasing the dependability and credibility of the study.A strength of the study is that the inclusion of men and women with different level of education, living in urban and rural areas and of different health status captured a wide range of experiences. However, since the aim of the study was to reach understanding of characteristics of individuals who managed to reduce their CVD risk when participating in the intervention, a limitation is that reactions from less fortunate groups are not incorporated.Before the study started, the risk was considered that informants might have difficulties remembering and reporting events three years back in time, which can be a threat to the credibility of the study. However, even though, on a few occasions, informants expressed uncertainty we did not find reason to doubt the accuracy of their memories in general. Rather, the vivid and sometimes very detailed descriptions of reactions may imply not only that the informants remembered their reactions and actions very well, but also that receiving the risk message to a high extent was emotionally engaging, and that the latter might have contributed to the former. Social desirability was considered a minor risk since informants’ stories of lifestyle modifications were coherent with blood samples at the one-year follow-up and ultrasound results at the three-year follow-up.