Applications of Grounded Theory Methodology to Investigate Hearing Loss: A Methodological Qualitative Systematic Review With Developed Guidelines

OBJECTIVES

Qualitative methodologies are commonly adopted in hearing loss research. Grounded theory methodology is increasingly used to establish novel theories explaining experiences related to hearing loss. Establishing and improving the quality of grounded theory studies has been emphasized as critical to ensuring theoretical trustworthiness. Thus, the primary aim of the present study was to systematically review hearing loss research studies that have applied grounded theory methodology and assess the methodological quality of those grounded theory applications. Secondarily aims were to (i) explore how grounded theory methodology has been applied to investigate hearing loss, and (ii) use the findings of the review to develop a set of guidelines to aid the future high-quality application of grounded theory methodology to hearing loss research.

DESIGN

Original peer-reviewed studies applying grounded theory methodology and published in English were identified through systematic searches in 10 databases; Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EBSCO, Global Health, MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The quality of studies was assessed according to 12 grounded theory principles using the Guideline for Reporting, Evaluating, and applying the core principles of Grounded Theory studies (GUREGT) tool. Data were analyzed using qualitative inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

After the removal of duplicates, 155 articles were retrieved. Of those, 39 met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. An increase in the adoption of grounded theory methodology to investigate hearing loss was identified with the number of published studies tripling in the last 5 years. Critical appraisal using the GUREGT tool identified four studies as high-quality. Most included studies were of moderate study quality (n = 25), and 10 were classified as being of low study quality. Using inductive thematic analysis, the included studies investigated one of four areas relating to hearing loss: (a) Living with hearing loss, (b) Identity and hearing loss, (c) Coping strategies for hearing loss, and (d) Audiological counseling and rehabilitation. Analysis also identified four main grounded theory factors frequently overlooked in hearing loss research: the different schools of grounded theory, sampling strategy, sample size, and the depth of grounded theory application.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of grounded theory methodology is increasing at a rapid rate in hearing loss research. Despite this, studies conducted in the field to date do not meet and apply the full spectrum of grounded theory principles, as outlined by the GUREGT tool. To improve methodological rigor in future studies using grounded theory, we propose a set of guidelines that address the most commonly overlooked methodological considerations in hearing loss studies to date. The guidelines are designed to aid researchers to achieve high methodological quality in any field, improve qualitative rigor, and promote theoretical credibility.

Applications of qualitative grounded theory methodology to investigate hearing loss: protocol for a qualitative systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Hearing loss is a chronic condition affecting 12 million individuals in the UK. People with hearing loss regularly experience difficulties interacting in everyday conversations. These difficulties in communication can result in a person with hearing loss withdrawing from social situations and becoming isolated. While hearing loss research has largely deployed quantitative methods to investigate various aspects of the condition, qualitative research is becoming more widespread. Grounded theory is a specific qualitative methodology that has been used to establish novel theories on the experiences of living with hearing loss.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

The aim of this systematic review is to establish how grounded theory has been applied to investigate the psychosocial aspects of hearing loss. Methods are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. Studies included in this review will have applied grounded theory as an overarching methodology or have grounded theory embedded among other methodologies. Studies included will have adult participants (≥18 years) who are either people with an acquired hearing loss, their family and friends (communication partners), or healthcare practitioners including audiologists, general practitioners, ear, nose and throat specialists and hearing therapists. The quality of application of grounded theory in each study will be assessed using the Guideline for Reporting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Research Studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As only secondary data will be used in this systematic review, ethical approval is not required. No other ethical issues are foreseen. This review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and at relevant academic conferences. Findings may also be published in relevant professional and third sector newsletters and magazines as appropriate. Data will inform future research and guideline development.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019134197.

Challenging oppressive practice in mental health: The development and evaluation of a video based resource for student nurses

Some aspects of mental health nursing practice are inherently oppressive; for example detention in hospital or forced medication under restraint. What is more challenging is thinking about oppression in the context of everyday mental health nursing work, such as nursing handovers, and the impact this has on the quality and safety of service user care. An online resource was co-developed for use (via a workshop) with student mental health nurses to assist them with questioning their own and others practice in relation to oppression as exhibited in the nursing handover. The resource was evaluated using an approach broadly informed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick's four levels of learning model. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 student mental health nurses immediately at the end of the session where they were introduced to the video resource and again when they returned to school following their final management placement (24 interviews in total). Data was analysed using thematic analysis. Three overarching themes were identified: "enabling reflection on and in real life"; "surfacing mundane practice" and "confidence to challenge". Video based resources act as "tools" to facilitate reflective practice and enable student nurses to engage critically in questioning their own and others practice.

An exploration of the practice, policy and legislative issues of the specialist area of nursing people with intellectual disability: A scoping review

The specialist field of intellectual disability nursing has been subjected to a number of changes since the move towards deinstitutionalisation from the 1970s. Government policies sought to change the nature of the disability workforce from what was labelled as a medicalised approach, towards a more socially oriented model of support. Decades on however, many nurses who specialise in the care of people with intellectual disability are still employed. In Australia, the advent of the National Disability Insurance Scheme offers an apt moment to reflect upon these decades of specialised nursing care as the context of this nursing care will continue to evolve. A review of the published literature was conducted to explore what has shaped the field in the past and how this might inform the future of this speciality area under new policy and service contexts. People with intellectual disability have specific health and support needs that require a specialised workforce. Specialist nurses continue to be needed for people with intellectual disability.

DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices

OBJECTIVE

To develop a short instrument, called DISCERN, which will enable patients and information providers to judge the quality of written information about treatment choices. DISCERN will also facilitate the production of new, high quality, evidence-based consumer health information.

DESIGN

An expert panel, representing a range of expertise in consumer health information, generated criteria from a random sample of information for three medical conditions with varying degrees of evidence: myocardial infarction, endometriosis, and chronic fatigue syndrome. A graft instrument, based on this analysis, was tested by the panel on a random sample of new material for the same three conditions. The panel re-drafted the instrument to take account of the results of the test. The DISCERN instrument was finally tested by a national sample of 15 information providers and 13 self help group members on a random sample of leaflets from 19 major national self help organisations. Participants also completed an 8 item questionnaire concerning the face and content validity of the instrument.

RESULTS

Chance corrected agreement (weighted kappa) for the overall quality rating was kappa = 0.53 (95% CI kappa = 0.48 to kappa = 0.59) among the expert panel, kappa = 0.40 (95% CI kappa = 0.36 to kappa = 0.43) among information providers, and kappa = 0.23 (95% CI kappa = 0.19 to kappa = 0.27) among self help group members. Higher agreement levels were associated with experience of using the instrument and with professional knowledge of consumer health information. Levels of agreement varied across individual items on the instrument, reflecting the need for subjectivity in rating certain criteria. The trends in levels of agreement were similar among all groups. The final instrument consisted of 15 questions plus an overall quality rating. Responses to the questionnaire after the final testing revealed the instrument to have good face and content validity and to be generally applicable.

CONCLUSIONS

DISCERN is a reliable and valid instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information. While some subjectivity is required for rating certain criteria, the findings demonstrate that the instrument can be applied by experienced users and providers of health information to discriminate between publications of high and low quality. The instrument will also be of benefit to patients, though its use will be improved by training.

A problematic counter-regulation experiment: implications for the link between dietary restraint and overeating

The current study failed to find any evidence of laboratory counter-regulation amongst restrained eaters given a preload, regardless of the measures of dietary restraint used to classify subjects, including dieting status on the day of the study. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that high restrainers characteristically overeat or experience a sense of loss of control over eating in naturalistic settings. These findings indicate that the link between dietary restraint and overeating or bulimic episodes is, at most, a weak one. Future investigations must incorporate more detailed and sensitive measures of both restraint and overeating if analogue studies are to be useful for understanding the process involved in clinically significant episodes of overeating or binge eating.