Saskia Baltrusch

211 Chapter 8 themes were discussed with a team member (JK) until consensus was reached on all categories. Direct quotes used in the discussion were translated into English. Due to data loss we could only use direct quotes from the double interview. We, however, included indirect quotes of the focus groups, derived from the reconstructed discussion. 3 Results 3.1 Quantitative results The assessment of self-efficacy showed a main effect of time point of the measurement (p=0.02). Post-hoc testing revealed a significant difference between BASE measurement and TRY-OUT measurement, with increased total score in the TRY-OUT measurement (median (IQR): 70 (65-74) vs. 75 (69-78); p=0.009 (Figure 2). We did not find a significant difference in self-efficacy between the BASE measurement and the EXPECTATION measurement (70 (65- 74) vs. 70 (62-77); p=0.5. Figure 2: Self-efficacy assessed with the M-SFS questionnaire at the three time points: Base, Expectation and Try-out. (The red line represents the sample median. The distances between the tops and bottoms are the interquartile ranges. Whiskers show the min and max values; outliers are represented as a +). *Significant difference in M-SFS score to base measurement.Figure 3 presents the difference of self-efficacy score from BASE measurement (x-axis) to TRY-OUT measurement (y-axis) for individual participants. We found that most of the participants started with a MSFS-score higher than the cut-off value (>56). Specifically, participants with a low MSFS-score at base measurement showed the biggest increase in MSFS-score. 8