## 4 Discussion
#### Strengths and Limitations  
One strength of this study is that it includes health care professionals' perspectives from both acute and palliative cancer care, as well as different organizations perspectives (non-profit, government and privately organized). From this perspective, we believe the results on the importance of integration may be transferable to other settings. In addition, using fictive patient cases may increase the transferability, since challenges in caring for patients with complex needs are not unique. On the other hand, the region of Stockholm is a large region with multiple health care providers, hence the results might not be entirely transferable to another smaller region or health care system. To increase credibility and trustworthiness, we chose an analytic method with a systematic approach, FA [30]. We found this method suitable for the aim, and foremost a way of being highly transparent in the authors pre-understanding of the topic, with early in the process organizing the data in a matrix with preliminary themes, that during the process was altered. This is particularly suitable when exploring an existing problem, rather than producing a new theory [31]. Further, FA is allowing a constant comparison between and within cases, including all data.  
The authors have vast experience in oncology care and HU also in palliative care. However, none of the authors were involved in clinical decision-making related to the HCPs in the study. Although the authors' pre-understanding could have influenced the data analyses and interpretation of the data, awareness of this risk and the continuous dialogue between the authors helped to minimize potential misinterpretations, as well as strengthening rigor. Further, as mentioned above, the FA, was used to strengthening rigor. However, the in-depth knowledge was crucial during the interviews, as it helped to understand the complexity, as well as increase the willingness of the participants to share this.  
We cannot be sure if and how conducting the FGI's face-to-face would have impacted the results. In a previous study, comparing face-to-face with interviews via a digital platform, the results indicate similar findings between the two types of interviews [45]. As this study was performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, online FDIs were the only possible option as no external visitors including researchers were allowed in any health care setting during this time-period.  
A common recommendation in qualitative research is to invite six to eight participants in focus groups [46]. In this study, the number of participants varied between two (one FGI) and five (one FGI). Slightly smaller groups have also been recommended, as it may facilitate discussing sensitive topics and also increase the involvement of all participants [47]. Most of the participants were nurses and women, which may have influenced the results. However, this also reflects the reality, as nurses are the largest professional group in health care [48] and health care is heavily female-dominated.  
We have not yet provided the findings to the participants; however, we have presented the preliminary findings at several forums, and asked for feedback from HCP working in the same setting as the participants. In general, our preliminary findings have been well-recognized among both nurses and physicians, and we perceive a great interest among the HCP to further discuss and act on those findings