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.

Physical activity and learning disability.

The inclusion of people with learning disabilities in sporting activities promotes a number of positive outcomes. These may include opportunities for social inclusion, the creation of positive role models for other people with learning disabilities, the opportunity to present people with learning disabilities in valued social roles to a global community, sharing of common interests and experiences, and social and competitive rewards. There is also the potential for positive physical and mental health outcomes. Current data suggests that people with learning disabilities are physically less active than the rest of the population, more likely to lead sedentary lifestyles and more prone to obesity and associated health conditions. However, there are a number of ways in which nurses may support both individuals and their carers to engage with and promote programmes of physical activity. These may include the design of individual activity plans incorporated within health action planning aligned with suitable rewards systems. Action might also be taken in terms of health promotion advice and information to carers and those providing facilities for physical activity.

Epidemiology of rhinitis: allergic and nonallergic.

In summary, the epidemiological data and characterization of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis has been reviewed. Chronic rhinitis symptoms are among the most common problems presenting to physicians. When approaching this problem the diagnostic challenge is to determine the etiology, specifically whether it is allergic, nonallergic, or perhaps an overlap of both conditions. Estimates of the prevalence of allergic rhinitis range from as low as 9% to as high as 42%. Although the prevalence of nonallergic rhinitis has not been studied definitively, it appears to be very common with an estimated prevalence in the United States of approximately 19 million. In comparison, the prevalence of mixed rhinitis is approximately 26 million, and allergic rhinitis ("pure" and "mixed" combined) 58 million. Challenges in the differential diagnosis of rhinitis result from two major factors. Not only are presenting symptoms of allergic, nonallergic, and mixed rhinitis often indistinguishable from one another, but also the differential diagnosis of nonallergic rhinitis is extensive. Nonallergic rhinitis is often characterized by onset after age 20, female predominance, nasal hyperactivity, perennial symptoms, and nasal eosinophilia in approximately one-third of the population. Positive tests for relevant specific IgE sensitivity in the setting of rhinitis do not rule out "mixed rhinitis" and may not rule out nonallergic rhinitis. The significance of symptom exacerbation by nonallergic triggers in the setting of allergic rhinitis remains to be determined. Goals for the future include reaching a consensus on the definitions of rhinitis and rhinitis subtypes including the establishment of mixed rhinitis, updating guidelines for the interpretation of nonrelevant positive tests for specific IgE sensitivity, and reaching agreement on the nonallergic triggers that best define VMR or VMR subtypes. Only then can the most applicable research results be obtained. The desired result is the delivery of the most appropriate treatment, specifically tailored to the accurate diagnosis of patients with rhinitis.