Qualitative Analytical Plan
All participants enrolled in the RCT who were interested in the qualitative interview were contacted for consent for the study with enrolment stopping once thematic saturation had been met. Two sets of standardized semi-structured open-ended interview guides were used, one for patients and one for family caregivers, with a question focused on sociodemographic disparities. The influence of income, costs, and income-related disparities on post-discharge outcomes was addressed through patient and caregiver experiences during one-on-one telephone interviews conducted in English by one of our study authors (AT) and a separate research team supervised by the principal investigator (PI) (KO).Recordings of semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and these transcripts served as primary units of analysis using NVivo software. Given our qualitative study was focused more generally on patient experiences in the post-discharge period, we used a wide range of keywords to extract quotes to ensure a wider capture of relevant data for our research question. The following keywords were used by the lead author (MS) and reviewed by the PI (KO) to ensure they were reflective of our objectives: money, fortune, bills, food, transportation, emergency, groceries, activity, CCAC (community care access center), personal support worker (PSW), life, accommodation, afford, bank, budget, medication, refills, prescription, pension, disability, price, cost, resources, and salary. The research team consisted of a medical student conducting a graduate diploma in health research (MS), two internal medicine physicians and scientists with expertise in care transitions (KO and CB), a qualitative expert with an expertise in care transitions (LJ), and the study’s research coordinator (AT). Scripts of identified quotes from NVivo were reviewed independently by two reviewers (AT and MS) and any discordances reviewed by the principal investigator (KO) with input from our qualitative expert (LJ) when needed.Directed content analysis was used where the major ideas emerging from reading the scripts were recorded and used to develop codes. With a direct content analysis, there were a priori concepts that helped organize our narrative though inductive analysis added methodological rigor to allow new codes to emerge. All coding was performed by two reviewers independently (MS, AT) and codes were discussed by all members of the qualitative team (MS, AT, KO, LJ). A deductive approach was then used to analyze retained scripts, independently, by all three reviewers (AT, MS, KO), for common themes. A fourth member (LJ) reviewed disagreements and discussions occurred until consensus was reached. A final step of reviewing codes by income category was completed (AT, MS, KO) in order to identify any differences in themes between low income, higher income, and preferred not to respond to income category.