Table 1 Qualitative Feedback from Student Evaluation of CPD Course (Focus Group Session)

Questioning route

A semi-structured questioning route was developed by the authors and used for three developed groups.

Session questions

1. The course settings (aim, achievement, content, organization, time, assessment methods and instructors),

2. Their experience of skills development (e.g. SMART objectives plan, personal SWOT analysis, learning styles, Curriculum Vitae (CV) development and personal portfolios),

3. Benefits and strengths of the course in enhancing student learning,

4. Barriers and weakness of the course that hindered students’ learning,

5. Experiences students enjoyed most in the course and their suggestions for improving the courses in the future.

Student focus groups (FGs)

Three homogeneous student FGs were arranged based on the preferred medium of communication;

a. FG1 and FG2 were conducted in Turkish language

b. FG3 in English language.

Informed consent

a. Before the commencement of the focus group, students were asked if they would be willing to participate in an approximately 30-min session to provide feedback on the CPD course.

b. All participants were informed that their session will be recorded and assured that their lack of participation in the session would have no effect on their grade.

Qualitative data manipulation

The first stage involved transcription carried by the principal researcher and reviewed by 2nd author for accuracy and annotated for nonverbal content.

Following transcription, the script was translated into English using backward and forward translation method done by the principal researcher and the 2nd author (bilingual English, Turkish); then by a professional translator (bilingual with Turkish as a first language)

Following translation, the third stage involved content analysis of the data sets to develop categories and themes.

Inductive thematic analysis

Inductive thematic analysis of the transcripts was undertaken based on six steps [28]^:

a, becoming familiar with the data;

b, generating initial codes;

c, searching for themes;

d, reviewing themes;

e, defining and naming themes

f, finally producing the report.

- The principal researcher reviewed all the transcripts several times, coded the data and extracted the main emerging themes.

- A second investigator reviewed the transcripts and the key themes thus strengthening the validation of study results.

- All authors discussed the themes, codes, similarities, and differences until agreement was reached on the key themes and subthemes.