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

Designing a package of sexual and reproductive health and HIV outreach services to meet the heterogeneous preferences of young people in Malawi: results from a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: This article examines young people's preferences for integrated family planning (FP) and HIV services in rural Malawi. Different hypothetical configurations for outreach services are presented using a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). Responses are analysed using Random Parameters Logit and Generalised Mixed Logit (GMXL) models in preference space and a GMXL model parameterised in willingness-to-pay space. Simulations are used to estimate the proportion of respondents expected to choose different service packages as elements are varied individually and in combination. RESULTS: Responses were collected from 537 young people aged 15-24. Results show that when considering attending an outreach service to access family planning young people value confidentiality and the availability of HIV services including HIV counselling and testing (HCT) and HIV treatment, though significant observable and unobservable heterogeneity is present. Female respondents and those aged 20-24 were less concerned with service confidentiality compared to male respondents and those aged 15-19; respondents who were in a relationship at the time of the survey valued confidentiality more than those who reported being single. The addition of sports and recreation for young people may also be an attractive feature of a youth-friendly service; however, preferences for this attribute vary according to respondent gender. Results of the simulation modelling indicate that the most preferred service package is one that offers confidential services, both HCT and HIV treatment and sports for youth, with up to 32% of respondents expected to choose this service over a service where clients may have concerns over confidentiality, only HCT is available and there are no additional activities for young people. Estimates of willingness-to-pay for service attributes indicate that respondents were willing to pay up to USD$1.76 for confidentiality, USD$0.65 for a service offering both HCT and HIV treatment and USD$0.26 for a service including sports for youth. CONCLUSIONS: Young people were able to complete a complex DCE and appeared to trade between the different characteristics used to describe the outreach services. These findings may offer important insight to policy makers designing youth friendly SRH outreach services and providers aiming to improve the acceptability and uptake of FP services

Diagnostic thinking and information used in clinical decision-making: a qualitative study of expert and student dental clinicians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is uncertain whether the range and frequency of Diagnostic Thinking Processes (DTP) and pieces of information (concepts) involved in dental restorative treatment planning are different between students and expert clinicians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We video-recorded dental visits with one standardized patient. Clinicians were subsequently interviewed and their cognitive strategies explored using guide questions; interviews were also recorded. Both visit and interview were content-analyzed, following the Gale and Marsden model for clinical decision-making. Limited tests used to contrast data were t, χ², and Fisher's. Scott's π was used to determine inter-coder reliability.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifteen dentists and 17 senior dental students participated in visits lasting 32.0 minutes (± 12.9) among experts, and 29.9 ± 7.1 among students; contact time with patient was 26.4 ± 13.9 minutes (experts), and 22.2 ± 7.5 (students). The time elapsed between the first and the last instances of the clinician looking in the mouth was similar between experts and students. Ninety eight types of pieces of information were used in combinations with 12 DTPs. The main differences found in DTP utilization had dentists conducting diagnostic interpretations of findings with sufficient certainty to be considered definitive twice as often as students. Students resorted more often to more general or clarifying enquiry in their search for information than dentists.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Differences in diagnostic strategies and concepts existed within clearly delimited types of cognitive processes; such processes were largely compatible with the analytic and (in particular) non-analytic approaches to clinical decision-making identified in the medical field. Because we were focused on a clinical presentation primarily made up of non-emergency treatment needs, use of other DTPs and concepts might occur when clinicians evaluate emergency treatment needs, complex rehabilitative cases, and/or medically compromised patients.</p