As permitted by participants, all interviews had been recorded making use of a voice recorder. Data were analyzed utilizing qualitative content evaluation. The information evaluation started during the initial field activities, and as the study proceeded, we created revisions in analysis queries and refined the analysis. We initiated reading and coding even though the information have been being collected within the field. We wrote "memos" to Hat of `adherence', reflecting the part of your service user inside assist us clarify that how ideas fully integrated with one particular an additional and how analysis resulted inside the study report. The `framework' system was employed for the evaluation. This method contains 5 measures of `familiarization', `identifying a thematic framework', `indexing', `charting', and `mapping and interpretation' (17). For the `familiarization' step, we listed essential concepts and recurrent themes by listening to tapes, reading transcripts, and studying notes. We employed a content material summary form which was developed for each interview. The form integrated preliminary codes inside the columns and also the participants' characteristics in the rows. For the second step, `identifying a thematic framework', we created a preliminary thematic framework primarily based on the interviews and the theoretical frameworks (18, 19). Then, for the `indexing' step, we applied the thematic framework to each of the data in textual form by annotating the transcripts with numerical codes from the index. TheIran Red Crescent Med J. 2016; 18(2)etwo coders discussed codes and reconciled coding choices. For the `charting' step, one table was produced for every single `theme'. The rows were assigned towards the interviews and columns for the subthemes. The evaluation `charts' allowed us to transfer information onto the tables to evaluate the views of participants across distinctive themes and to compare the views of different participants about every single theme. Based on how generally the themes appeared across the information and how rich or complicated the concepts related to that theme, we incorporated the subthemes in to the coding scheme. Ultimately, for the `mapping and interpretation', we found associations between themes using a view to providing explanations for the findings. The thematic framework was updated within the method of the analysis by noticing that particular labels began to cluster and other Estions asked service users to provide their very own motives connected to people separated out. The rigor of the data was accomplished via prolonged engagement more than 3 months and 25 hours of interviews. The audiotapes, transcriptions, sufficient paraphrases, and also the evaluation and coding documents constituted the audit trail. Possible researcher bias was overtly examined through personal reflection, consultation with specialists in study involving qualitative research. Copies of an exhaustive description of your findings were sent to a random selection of eight of participants for their evaluation, verification, and comments. Information have been analyzed applying the qualitative and mixed strategies data analysis software (MAXQDA) ten application. As regards this study is a part of a Ph.D. thesis, and is not financially supported by any organization, there is no conflict of interest.Ghaffari M et al.Table 2. Frequency of Categories and Subcategories Category Health belief Attitude Perceived susceptibility Perceived severity Normative beliefs Perceived benefits Perceived barriersValues a five (16.66) 7 (23.33) 12 (40) 15 (50)eight (26.66) 20 (66.66.Extra information, a additional five interviews were carried out to validate the saturation.