| Title |
How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-128 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexandra Sbaraini, Stacy M Carter, R Wendell Evans, Anthony Blinkhorn |
| Abstract |
Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many 'grounded theory' studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 24 | 47% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Thailand | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 18 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 25 | 49% |
| Members of the public | 24 | 47% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 10 | <1% |
| United States | 6 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 4 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| India | 3 | <1% |
| South Africa | 3 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1327 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 279 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 266 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 159 | 12% |
| Researcher | 98 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 72 | 5% |
| Other | 266 | 19% |
| Unknown | 231 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 232 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 182 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 128 | 9% |
| Psychology | 128 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 121 | 9% |
| Other | 309 | 23% |
| Unknown | 271 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2021.
All research outputs
#881,179
of 24,187,394 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#81
of 2,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,539
of 129,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,187,394 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 129,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.