participate. This made a total of 302 people surveyed (see chart in Question 1 below). The need to have a good cultural spread within a research group was reinforced by the researcher group, who were able to successfully work across several distinct cultural groups. The results give a percentage to the answers that participants have selected while in ‘Null’ some answers has been provided for those that simply do not want to answer. The survey was written in plain English and loaded onto computer tablets where the ACRs were able to conduct surveys and interpret in their own language. It is also important to note that, although were 204 survey participants, some questions only show as little as 176 responses, and some questions show over 550 responses. The reason is that some respondents were unable to respond to certain questions or preferred to decline, while other questions invited a choice of responses that could be more than one. This approach was used to suit particular questions. For example, where we were seeking cause and effect relationships (for example, asking participants to explain the reasons for something happening), it was logical to allow more than one response so that the range of potential connections was identified. For questions that required a single response, then only one was invited. In analysing the data, we therefore took care in ensuring that the analysis of data and presentation as proportions or percentages of responses against particular options took this into account. Where more than one response was permitted, then we avoided the inference that this option was chosen by a proportion of individuals when it represents only a proportion of responses. Question 1: Consent Question 2: Gender Question 3: Age Question 4: Roles and responsibilities
participate. This made a total of 302 people surveyed (see chart in Question 1 below). The need to have a good cultural spread within a research group was reinforced by the researcher group, who were able to successfully work across several distinct cultural groups. The results give a percentage to the answers that participants have selected while ‘Null’ in some answers has been provided for those that simply do not want to answer. The survey was written in plain English and loaded onto computer tablets where the ACRs were able to conduct surveys and interpret in their own language. It is also important to note that, although were 204 survey participants, some questions only show as little as 176 responses, and some questions show over 550 responses. The reason is that some respondents were unable to respond to certain questions or preferred to decline, while other questions invited a choice of responses that could be more than one. This approach was used to suit particular questions. For example, where we were seeking cause and effect relationships (for example, asking participants to explain the reasons for something happening), it was logical to allow more than one response so that the range of potential connections was identified. For questions that required a single response, then only one was invited. In analysing the data, we therefore took care in ensuring that the analysis of data and presentation as proportions or percentages of responses against particular options took this into account. Where more than one response was permitted, then we avoided the inference that this option was chosen by a proportion of individuals when it represents only a proportion of responses. Question 1: Consent Question 2: Gender Question 3: Age Question 4: Roles and responsibilities