Phillip Stephen Woods

Generating or developing grounded theory: methods to understand health and illness

Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology that aims to explain social phenomena, e.g. why particular motivations or patterns of behaviour occur, at a conceptual level. Developed in the 1960s by Glaser and Strauss, the methodology has been reinterpreted by Strauss and Corbin in more recent times, resulting in different schools of thought. Differences arise from different philosophical perspectives concerning knowledge (epistemology) and the nature of reality (ontology), demanding that researchers make clear theoretical choices at the commencement of their research when choosing this methodology. Compared to other qualitative methods it has ability to achieve understanding of, rather than simply describing, a social phenomenon. Achieving understanding however, requires theoretical sampling to choose interviewees that can contribute most to the research and understanding of the phenomenon, and constant comparison of interviews to evaluate the same event or process in different settings or situations. Sampling continues until conceptual saturation is reached, i.e. when no new concepts emerge from the data. Data analysis focusses on categorising data (finding the main elements of what is occurring and why), and describing those categories in terms of properties (conceptual characteristics that define the category and give meaning) and dimensions (the variations within properties which produce specificity and range). Ultimately a core category which theoretically explains how all other categories are linked together is developed from the data. While achieving theoretical abstraction in the core category, it should be logical and capture all of the variation within the data. Theory development requires understanding of the methodology not just working through a set of procedures. This article provides a basic overview, set in the literature surrounding grounded theory, for those wanting to increase their understanding and quality of research output.

Australian pharmacy perspectives on increasing access to medicines through reclassification

Objectives Availability of medicines without prescription can increase consumers’ timely access to treatment and promote self-management of minor ailments and adherence to long-term medications. Globally, access to relevant medicines has improved through increased reclassification of medicines from prescription to non-prescription availability. However, Australian reclassification lags behind countries with comparable health systems, and the factors influencing this are poorly understood. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted during May 2015 to explore the perspectives of Australian pharmacists and support staff on future reclassification. Interview responses were transcribed verbatim, and the data were analysed thematically, primarily informed by the general inductive approach. Results Participants identified a broad range of medicines as candidates for future reclassification by applying risk versus benefit judgements, assessing any medicines with potential for misuse and hazardous medicines as unsuitable. Key drivers for change in classification were underpinned by participants’ desire to support consumers’ management of minor ailments and adherence for those on long-term therapy. Barriers to reclassification were identified by pharmacy staff as internal, negatively impacting pharmacists’ readiness for reclassification and external, negatively impacting the overall progress of change. Conclusions While the research provided valuable insights to inform the ongoing discussion on future reclassification, a larger, more representative sample is needed to confirm these findings.