The Application of Classic Grounded Theory in Nursing Studies: A Qualitative Systematic Review.
Justine Connor, Tracey Flenady, Trudy Dwyer and 1 others
PMID 40331732WHAT IT FOUND
Nursing studies using Classic Grounded Theory often fail to report the participants' 'main concern' or their evaluation criteria.
This omission compromises the theory's integrity. Clinicians should critically appraise these studies for missing methodological details before applying their findings.
Key findings
01Half of the included nursing studies did not report identifying the participants' 'main concern', a fundamental tenet of Classic Grounded Theory.
02Fourteen studies failed to present or explain the Classic Grounded Theory evaluation criteria (fit, work, relevance, modifiability), and sixteen did not use them to evaluate their theory.
03Data collection and sampling procedures were consistently described across all 29 included studies.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review only included studies published between 2010 and 2024. Only English-language peer-reviewed journals were included. The GUREGT tool itself has items that the authors suggest need rephrasing for better utility.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that a nursing study labelled 'Classic Grounded Theory' is methodologically sound. The review shows that many such studies omit critical steps like defining the main concern or evaluating the theory, which are essential for the validity of the findings.