Connor Justine, Flenady Tracey, Dwyer Trudy, Massey Deb
CQUniversity, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
School Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, North Australia, Australia.
J Adv Nurs. 2025 May 7. doi: 10.1111/jan.17022.
AIM(S): To explore the application of Classic Grounded Theory (GT) methodology in nursing research and critically appraise studies employing Classic GT against the validated framework Guideline for Reporting and Evaluating Grounded Theory (GUREGT) research studies.
Systematic review without meta-analysis METHODS: The review followed the PRISMA statement and used the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline for data analysis. The quality of included articles was assessed using the CASP qualitative research appraisal tool, and the GUREGT framework was applied to evaluate adherence to Classic GT guiding principles.
Databases were PUBMED, CINAHL, Nursing and Allied Health Database (ProQuest).
Twenty-nine studies from 2010 to 2024 met the inclusion criteria. Findings revealed inconsistencies in the reporting of Classic GT methodology in nursing research, with frequent omissions of key methodological elements. The GUREGT tool, while user-friendly and practical, highlights gaps in areas such as identifying the main concern, philosophical positioning, and engagement with the literature. These omissions can compromise methodological rigour, suggesting that further refinement of the GUREGT tool is necessary.
The GUREGT tool provides a promising framework for improving the reporting and evaluation of Classic GT studies. However, its current version requires enhancement to fully address the unique demands of Classic GT and ensure rigorous application and reporting of the methodology. Development of a dedicated reporting guideline tailored to Classic GT is critical for advancing the quality of nursing research and supporting researchers in generating robust, theory-driven insights.
Few studies critically appraise Classic GT methodology in health research. This review highlights the need for dedicated reporting guidelines to support methodological rigour and transparency in Classic GT studies.
This review adhered to EQUATOR reporting guidelines.
No patient or public contribution.
探讨经典扎根理论(GT)方法在护理研究中的应用,并根据经过验证的《扎根理论研究报告与评价指南》(GUREGT)框架对采用经典GT的研究进行批判性评价。
非元分析的系统评价
本评价遵循PRISMA声明,并使用非元分析综合(SWiM)指南进行数据分析。使用CASP定性研究评估工具评估纳入文章的质量,并应用GUREGT框架评估对经典GT指导原则的遵循情况。
数据库为PUBMED、CINAHL、护理及相关健康数据库(ProQuest)。
2010年至2024年的29项研究符合纳入标准。研究结果显示,护理研究中经典GT方法的报告存在不一致之处,关键方法要素经常被遗漏。GUREGT工具虽然用户友好且实用,但突出了在确定主要关注点、哲学定位和文献参与等领域的差距。这些遗漏可能会损害方法的严谨性,表明需要对GUREGT工具进行进一步完善。
GUREGT工具为改进经典GT研究的报告和评价提供了一个有前景的框架。然而,其当前版本需要改进,以充分满足经典GT的独特需求,并确保该方法的严格应用和报告。制定专门针对经典GT的报告指南对于提高护理研究质量和支持研究人员生成有力的、理论驱动的见解至关重要。
很少有研究对健康研究中的经典GT方法进行批判性评价。本评价强调需要专门的报告指南,以支持经典GT研究中的方法严谨性和透明度。
本评价遵循EQUATOR报告指南。
无患者或公众参与。