and rephrased and asked follow-up questions to clarify and conﬁrm
the correct understanding of participants’answers.
As similar themes arose repeatedly and no new themes
emerged in theﬁnal interviews, data saturation was achieved (23).
2.7 Analysis
The transcribed material was analyzed using systematic text
condensation (STC) ( 30) and was organized utilizing NVivo
(version 1.7.1). STC is a method for cross-case analysis inspired
by phenomenology. It involves four-steps: (1) identi ﬁcation
overall themes from the empirical material, (2) extraction of
meaning units from the text which were then coded into groups,
(3) condensation of all meaning units within the subgroups into
an arti ﬁcial quotation, that summarize and represents
participants’ voices, (4) recontextualization of the material into
categories, presented as analytical texts. The process is iterative,
resulting in continuous movement between the transcripts and
within different steps of the analysis. An example of the STC
process is illustrated inFigure 1.
The ﬁrst author (SSHD) transcribed the interviews and read
all material several times, while BN and ECA read most of the
interviews before preliminary themes were agreed on. SSHD
identiﬁed meaning units adhering to these themes and
coded them into groups. Condensates of the subgroups were
written by SSHD and discussed by all researchers. SSHD then
recontextualized the material by forming categories
described as analytical texts supplemented by quotes, a process
that was discussed and revised several times by all authors.
All authors contributed to writing the manuscript.
Enactive theory was used to interpret the results, aiming at
extracting new knowledge beyond what the informants
h a dp r o v i d e d(28).
3 Results
Participants were interviewed one-on-one by theﬁrst author
(SSHD) in November and December 2021 (mean = 14 days post-
outdoor group). The time and place of the interviews were
agreed upon according to participants’ preferences (undisturbed
ofﬁce (n = 14), participant’s home (n = 1)). None dropped out.
The interviews lasted between 40 and 70 min (mean = 54, total =
822) and were audio-recorded.
The results are presented as four categories summarized in
Figure 2 and described below as analytic texts and illustrative
quotes referenced with the participant ID and EDSS score.
FIGURE 1
Example of the analysis process (excerpts).
Dahl et al. 10.3389/fresc.2024.1303094
Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences 05 frontiersin.org