Developing codes from the interview: reading versus listening.

BACKGROUND: Interviewing is a vital and common method of collecting data in qualitative research. The interview is usually recorded and a written transcription is created from the recording. The transcription document is then analysed by reading and re-reading to fracture the data and develop initial codes, as in grounded theory methodology. However, this method has disadvantages. AIM: To report on how the authors used the process of generating initial codes during their analysis in a research study. DISCUSSION: The authors compare the rigour and efficiency of generating initial codes from reading written transcripts with generating initial codes from listening to recordings. The most notable difference between the two methods is the length of time needed to transcribe the recording before coding can start. The authors discuss the lessons they learned from their pragmatic decision to expedite initial coding by listening to rather than reading the interview data. CONCLUSION: Grounded theory requires concurrent data generation and analysis. Audio analysis is efficient in developing initial codes from interview recordings. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurse researchers can use the audio method of analysing interview data.

Using storylines for bilingual dissemination of a grounded theory.

BACKGROUND: A storyline in a grounded theory study plays two important roles: an analytical tool and a research product. Using more than one language in a study affects the research, including the dissemination of its findings. Very little literature discusses how to develop and disseminate a storyline. AIM: This paper offers insight into the crafting of a storyline to disseminate a grounded theory study describing how people in Indonesia with diabetes learn about their disease. DISCUSSION: This paper explains how the researchers developed the storyline. The authors then address considerations in the storyline's development and explain how they disseminated it, as well as the factors that influenced that dissemination. CONCLUSION: Disseminating findings through a storyline written in the local language ensures that the target audience all have access to a study's outcomes through an easily readable publication. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Sharing a storyline helps to disseminate the outcomes of a grounded theory study. It informs the wider community of new knowledge and enables it to review, understand and apply the outcomes of research.

How people living with diabetes in Indonesia learn about their disease: A grounded theory study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes education has been found to impact positively on self-management by people with diabetes although little is known about the process by which they assimilate information. The aim of this study was to generate a theory explaining the process by which people with diabetes learn about their disease in Indonesia. METHODS: This study employed a grounded theory methodology influenced by constructivism and symbolic interactionism. A total of twenty-eight face-to-face or telephone interviews with participants from Indonesia that included people with diabetes, healthcare professionals, health service providers and families of people with diabetes were conducted in both Indonesia and Australia. RESULTS: This study discloses a core category of Learning, choosing, and acting: self-management of diabetes in Indonesia as the basic social process of how people learn about their diabetes. The process includes five distinctive major categories. People with diabetes acted after they had received recommendations that they considered to be trustworthy. Factors that influenced their choice of recommendations to adopt are also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of the complexity involved in their decision making will assist healthcare professionals to engage effectively with people living with diabetes.