Dunja Dreesens

69 group discussed and came to agreement on the scope of the meeting, and the intended final product(s). In step 2, they discussed the list with tool types (Annex D) to ensure that all participants present in the face-to-face meeting were familiar with the tools and their definitions, and, if not, described the tool, and verified that the list was complete. After agreeing on the scope and the tool list, the participants broke up into two groups to sort the tools: which ones to be included in the framework and which ones not, using the definition of the patient-directed knowledge tool (step 3). The two groups presented and discussed each other’s findings, and agreed on a list of preliminary tools to be included. Based on this list, the two groups independently identified purposes of the tools, taking the discussed and agreed upon definitions from step 2 into account (step 4). The outcomes of both groups were presented and discussed. This resulted in a first draft of the framework stating the preliminary included tools and their purposes. In step 5, the participants were split up in the two same groups, and were asked – using their research and practice knowledge – to identify core elements of the included tools. Once more, the findings of both groups were presented, discussed, and categorised leading to the second draft of the framework stating tool types, purposes and core elements. Dividing the participants into two groups facilitated involving all participants, and avoiding any individual dominating the group. When there was disagreement the participants discussed the issue until consensus was reached. The next step involved compiling the discussions and findings during a longer break and sent via email – together with the second draft of the framework – to participants taking part via a telephone conference at the end of day 1. The first day’s discussions and findings were presented by DD to the participants calling in, and the other participants in the room. The former participants were given the opportunity to ask clarifying questions, and propose/suggest additional tools, purposes, and core elements (step 6). The draft framework was adapted with the input of the remote participants. A summary of the discussions and findings, together with the latest draft framework, were sent via email to participants SH and RR in Australia who could not participate in the teleconference. They would add their knowledge and input during the night (step 7), so that it could be discussed during day 2 of the meeting. Day 2 was dedicated to fine-tuning the draft framework. Therefore, in step 8 the chair (JG) reviewed the possible tools and purposes with the participants to ensure that these were correct and complete, and if all agreed, confirming the purpose(s) for each tool. This exercise was repeated for the core elements (step 9). These steps resulted in the final draft of the framework as developed during the meeting. Chapter 4