BMC Public Health 2009, 9:258 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/258 Table 2: Recommended infection control measures Handwashing: When someone in the house is infected: Wash your hands with soap or gel for 15 seconds at least 6 times per day Hands must be washed before you eat or drink anything Hands must be washed after any contact with the infectious person or things they have touched Social distancing: Cough hygiene: When someone in the house is infected: Keep at least 3 feet away from the infected person When you are infected: Cover your nose or mouth with a tissue every time you cough or sneeze Throw the tissue away at once in a disposable container (e.g. plastic bag) When you are infected: Wash your hands with soap or gel for 15 seconds at least once an hour Hands must be washed before touching anything shared with other members of the household (e.g. door handles, TV remote controls etc.) Hands must be washed after blowing your nose or covering your mouth when you cough When you are infected: Keep at least 3 feet away from other people Try not to spend too long in the same room as them largely reflects their genuine attitudes and experiences [38]. That said, the analysis does acknowledge that there may be social influences on participants' discussions, including group processes and perceived demands to give socially desirable responses. Data analysis was iterative and began after completion of the first six focus groups. Study enrolment ceased when no new themes emerged from the data i.e. when saturation had been achieved [39]. The analytic process consisted of four phases, following guidelines for conducting thematic analysis [40] and establishing validity in qualitative research [41]. Phase one involved familiarisation with the data by reading and re-reading all transcripts. Phase two involved first level open and 'in-vivo' coding (a technique taken from grounded theory), i.e. working line-by-line, each element of the text was given a code that summarised the meaning of that text segment, where possible using the participants' own words. In phase three these lower level codes were organised into potential themes. Constant comparison (another technique from grounded theory) was used to identify data that did not match the evolving coding scheme, which was then modified to fit the data better. Constant comparison was also used for 'deviant case anal- ysis', i.e. to ensure that data that did not fit the dominant patterns was not ignored [41]. Discussions between the two authors shaped the development of the final coding structure. Phase four involved interpretation and explora- tion of the data, using the coding framework to identify the key influences on participants' likely adherence to infection control measures. A paper trail was maintained throughout all phases of analysis documenting progression from the raw data to the findings reported here. Participants are identified by focus group (F) or interview (I) number, gender and age. Where quotations involve dialogue between two or more participants within a focus group, the participant (P) number is also given. The frequency with which each code occurred was noted, but is only reported qualitatively below (e.g. stating that a view was expressed by 'most', 'some' or 'a few' participants). Exact frequencies are not reported as how often a code was spontaneously expressed in our study cannot be taken as a reliable meas- ure of how prevalent a view is in the population. Results The final coding scheme consisted of 29 themes. These themes were grouped into three categories: knowledge and perceptions of infection transmission; attitudes towards infection control measures; and factors relating to the implementation of infection control measures (see Table 3). Themes related to knowledge and perceptions of infection transmission are only summarised briefly here. The analysis primarily focuses on the final two categories in order to provide a detailed review of potential influ- ences on likely adherence to infection control measures. Although the views expressed by parents and non-parents did not appear to differ, the sample size does not permit firm conclusions to be drawn. Consequently, no explicit comparisons will be made between parents and non-par- ents within the results. Page 4 of 11 (page number not for citation purposes)