How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many 'grounded theory' studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We documented a worked example of using grounded theory methodology in practice.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We describe our sampling, data collection, data analysis and interpretation. We explain how these steps were consistent with grounded theory methodology, and show how they related to one another. Grounded theory methodology assisted us to develop a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and to analyse variation in this process in different dental practices.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>By employing grounded theory methodology rigorously, medical researchers can better design and justify their methods, and produce high-quality findings that will be more useful to patients, professionals and the research community.</p

Feedback reporting of survey data to healthcare aides

BackgroundThis project occurred during the course of the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program of research. TREC is a multilevel and longitudinal research program being conducted in the three Canadian Prairie Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The main purpose of TREC is to increase understanding about the role of organizational context in influencing knowledge use in residential long-term care settings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate healthcare aides&rsquo; (HCAs) perceptions of a one-page poster designed to feed back aggregated data (including demographic information and perceptions about influences on best practice) from the TREC survey they had recently completed. MethodsA convenience sample of 7 of the 15 nursing homes participating in the TREC research program in Alberta were invited to participate. Specific facility-level summary data were provided to each facility in the form of a one-page poster report. Two weeks following delivery of the report, a convenience sample of HCAs was surveyed using one-to-one structured interviews. ResultsOne hundred twenty-three HCAs responded to the evaluation survey. Overall, HCAs&rsquo; opinions about presentation of the feedback report and the understandability, usability, and usefulness of the content were positive. For each report, analysis of data and production and inspection of the report took up to one hour. Information sessions to introduce and explain the reports averaged 18 minutes. Two feedback reports (minimum) were supplied to each facility at a cost of CAN$2.39 per report, for printing and laminating. ConclusionsThis study highlights not only the feasibility of producing understandable, usable, and useful feedback reports of survey data but also the value and importance of providing feedback to survey respondents. More broadly, the findings suggest that modest strategies may have a positive and desirable effect in participating sites. <br /