Integrating Constructivist Grounded Theory with a Patient-Oriented Research Approach to Enhance Health Promotion Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To critically explore the value and challenges of combining a traditional methodology (constructivist grounded theory) with a newer approach (Patient-Oriented Research) in nursing research. Overview of the Issue Researchers need to examine novel approaches to research which incorporate the thoughts and ideas of patients and stakeholders in order to ensure that the research is important to end users. However, it is essential to maintain the rigour of traditional methodologies. Therefore, there is a need to explore combining traditional methodologies with new approaches. Results We combined a rigorous methodology with a modern approach to health promotion research that has not been described in the literature. There are numerous synergies between constructivist grounded theory and Patient-Oriented Research. However, tensions exist including pre-conceived knowledge, patients as researchers, and flexibility in research direction. Discussion Constructivist grounded theory with a Patient-Oriented Research approach for use in health promotion research requires thought and intentionality. Consideration of the time and money needed to build relationships and include patient partners as full team members is critical to successful research. Additionally, points of synergy and tension between constructivist grounded theory and Patient-Oriented Research must be navigated with each study. Conclusion Our findings indicate that constructivist grounded theory can be enhanced with a Patient-Oriented Research approach and may lead to increased depth in the development of the substantive grounded theory while also giving voice to the patient-partners. Implications for Profession There is a need for researchers to actively engage patients and stakeholders in a Patient-Oriented Research process while retaining the core of traditional methodologies. Impact This paper will provide researchers with an exemplar to incorporate patients as team members while conducting constructivist grounded theory research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.368 | 0.250 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".