A qualitative open-ended interview guide was developed and designed to capture the perceived environmental and individual-level factors (Integrated Behaviour Model constructs) affecting the motivation of people living with HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe to use traditional medicine (see Appendix 1). The first section of the interview guide asks questions on basic demographic information. Subsequent sections ask questions on IBM constructs. The second section captured information on the perceived effects of the socio-cultural environment on the motivation of PLWHA in Zimbabwe to use traditional medicine. The next section focused on perceived individual-level factors (attitude, social influence and personal agency) namely, experiential attitudes (feelings about the behaviour), instrumental attitudes (beliefs about the behaviour), injunctive norms (beliefs about others’ expectations), descriptive norms (beliefs about others’ behaviours), perceived control (beliefs about barriers and facilitators) and self-efficacy (ability to overcome barriers). Finally, the participants were asked if they had any issues or thoughts that had not been discussed that they thought could be useful or important to talk about.
The interview guide was translated from English into local research sites languages, Shona and Shangani (See Appendix 1). The translations were done in the
94
Department of Linquistics at The University of Zimbabwe. The instrument was pre- tested with a sample of four individuals (two males and two females) from each site who are living with HIV and have had treatment for HIV-related illnesses from a traditional healer. The pilot participants were recruited from Chitungwiza City and Save Communal Areas in Zimbabwe (See sampling section for recruitment procedure). These sites were selected to pretest the instruments because they are adjacent to the research sites (see participants and sampling section) and were therefore considered similar in characteristic to the research sites. In addition they were feasible in terms of the researcher’s budget and time constrains. The pretest respondents answered questions regarding understandabilty of questions and also whether the interviews adequately captured their peceptions regarding their motivations to use traditional medicine. They indicated clear understanding of the questions implying high validity of the instrument. Pilot data was transcribed, cleaned and analysed (see analysis section). Pilot data indicated that the sample size of four for the pre-test of the instrument was sufficient to assess the clarity and reliability of the instrument and the approximate time the interviews take. Although data from the pilot did not reach saturation, the data also formed the initial basis for theme identification and or generation for the main study. Pilot data was included in the main study.
As shown in Table 1 below, a total of four interviews were conducted for the pilot. The time taken ranged from 0:55:04 to 1:15:03, with an average of 1:02:27. The average time taken during the pilot was adopted as the expected time for all the interviews. However, during the interviews, the interviewees were told a duration of approximately an hour.
Table 4.1: Time taken for pilot interviews
Interviewer Time Comment
Muromo 1:03:23 First interview
Muromo 0:56:18 Second interview
Gift 1:15:03 First interview
Gift 0:55:04 Second interview
Total 4:09:48
95
Data was collected using two digital voice recorders; BELL OFFICE pro-series voice recorders (model no: DVR-6006). The interviews were conducted using the Interview guide (See Appendix 1).
The pilot presented some challenges that helped in the latter engagement of participants. The first interviews were conducted on the default dates on the recorders because of removal of the batteries. Once the batteries are removed, the recorders reset to default dates, for example 2010. This was to be avoided in later interviews. There was also a problem with the pause button. If one paused for a few minutes, the recorder would go off and as a result there ended up being more than one file for one interview. This presented challenges on handling and manipulation of such audio files. This was insufficiently explained in the manuals and the process of identifying this was not only a problem in itself but also caused untidiness in the presentation of broken interviews.
It was also noticed that the Shona guide version was inconsistent with the English one on the numbering. The first Shona question was not numbered and as a result it would appear invisible. Therefore in some interviews during the pilot it was not asked. Therefore, the numbering was adjusted to start on age, to match the English version. The numbering on the Shona version was also formatted to clearly separate the numbering from the number’s contents, as was on the English version. On item 2 (Shona) which was 3 (English), page 1; it was not clear on the distinction between option 1 and 2. They seem to be telling the same thing on the Shona version. It was also found necessary to strongly probe, especially for those for options 3-6, to find out about other active relationships. On item 5 (Shona) which was 6 (English), page 2: It was difficult to understand the translation of home village (Musha here?). Generally, it was found necessary to probe about rural connections, in other words visits to rural areas or lack thereof, period stayed there, if ever, active connections or lack of, and so on. It also seemed important to ask about where the participant was currently staying and for how long.
For the IBM constructs, on item 1 of I, it was found important to probe more on past experience, even childhood experiences. This question was very important as it served as an orientation to the whole interview. On item 2 of I for Shona version, there was need to translate to accommodate relationships other than marriage, like
96
‘Munonzwa sei nenyaya yokuti munhu wamakaroorana naye/wamurikufambidzana naye/wamugere naye mumba ashandise mishonga yechivanhu? On item 3 of I,
given that others do not have children, we could use this to ask about other people and children in general. On item 3 of III for Shona; there was a typo: Ndiani kana
kuti chii chingakutsigirai kauti kuti mwana wenyu ashandise mishonga yechivanhu?
On item 4 of IV for Shona; the item was not numbered and therefore invisible or asked together with item 3, so it was numbered to appear like other substantive questions. On item 2 of V for Shona; there was a repetition of kuti: Ndezvipi
zvingaite kuti zvive nyore kuti wamakaroorana naye kana wamunogara naye kuti ashandise mishonga yechivanhu? Items 4, 5 and 6 of V for Shona were incorrectly
numbered 1, 2 and 3 respectively and this was adjusted accordingly. There was a typo on VII, it should be; Hutungamiri nemamiriro ezvinhu zvingakuvhiringai: Kuvhiringidzwa kwamungaitwa nemamiriro ezvinhu muhutungamiri hwenyaya dzeutano. Item 2 and 3 of VII for Shona were not numbered and this was rectified. There was a typo on item 3 of VII for Shona, it should be; Ndezvipi zvikonzero
zvamunofunga kuti zvinechekuita nekugona kwenyu kushandisa mishonga yechivanhu?
During the pilot, it was very intriguing to ask participants to provide a pseudonym to attach to the conversation at the end of the interview and ask why they chose that pseudonym. Most of the names given were metaphorical, (Kushingirira (Its trying hard), Tinomboedza (We would try), Zvisinei (It doesn’t matter), Batsiranai (Help each other), etc.). General probing about why they opted for TAM was also very important. The length of time using TAM and how effective they perceive TAM to be with or without comparison to ARVs was also worthy of interogation. Generally, the interviews were interesting, although there was some monotony especially on the sets of six positive and negative questions on the same construct. Another interesting finding was that Shangani speaking participants preferred being interviewed in Shona. They use both languages.