Elien Neimeijer

69 Data collection Data were collected in tranches between November 2018 and October 2019. Oral and written information was given to participants, their legal guardians and treatment teams concerning data collection, study aims, objectives, and that data were treated confiden- tial and anonymous. A multidisciplinary treatment team consisting of a sociotherapist, a psychologist, and a psychiatrist determined whether a participant was able to give in- formed consent and to participate. Residents with severe and acute psychotic problems were excluded in accordance with ethical guidelines with regard to legal capacity. All included participants, and if applicable their legal guardian, gave their oral and written consent. Ethics approval for this study was granted from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences (ECSS) of the Radboud University (ECSW2017-3001-471). The COREQ criteria list for qualitative research was used to guide the analysis and re- port (Tong, Sainsbury, & Craig, 2007). In line with the IPA method, we used semi-structured interviews (Smith, 2011; Smith & Osborn, 2008). A topic list with visual support about group climate was used to guide the interviews. Consistent with the four subscales of the Group Climate Instrument (GCI; Neimeijer, Roest, Van der Helm, & Didden, 2019; Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011), the central topics of the interviews were support, growth, atmosphere, and repression. First, the interviewer asked the participant which topic was most important to them (e.g., ‘If we look at these four domains of the group climate (support, growth, atmosphere, and repression), which element do you think is the most important to you?’) and stimulated them to share concrete experiences on this topic (e.g. how does the par- ticipant view the kind of support he/she is given or how do the participant and sociother- apists get along). Also participants were asked to give examples of a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’ day on the living group. Interviews were carried out in an open and flexible manner with topics being covered according to the direction taken by the participants, aiming to initiate a dialogue with participants, while remaining open to other subjects raised by the participants them- selves. At the end of the interview, participants were given the opportunity to mention additional topics. The interviews were conducted by the first and second author who are licensed psychologists with extensive experience in working with individuals with MID-BIF in a secure setting. The interviewers used a not knowing attitude and asked in depth about concrete examples of situations, behaviour of sociotherapists and own