Creating evidence that is both scientifically rigorous and patient oriented in addressing patients’ needs is essential to informing health-care professionals’ practice and meeting patient needs. Patient-oriented research (POR) aims to address this 2-fold mandate by engaging and incorporating patients’ voices throughout the research process through a variety of techniques. Currently, there is little methodological rigor or guidance to help qualitative patient-oriented researchers design, collect, and analyze patient data. Classical grounded theory (GT) is arguably one of the most rigorous qualitative research methods, focusing on the development of theory from data grounded in participants’ voices. As such, classical GT is an ideal methodological approach for conducting POR due to its rigor, patient-oriented focus, and generation of an empirical model focused on the topic of interest. The purpose of this article is to describe the convergence and divergence between classical GT and POR, based on the current literature and pragmatically through an ongoing classical GT study focused on combat veterans’ perspective on Operational Stress Injuries (OSIs). By describing the methodological principles and their implementation in a POR study, we provide readers with both substantive and practical knowledge to utilize classical GT in POR studies, particularly within study populations that may be averse to or experience challenges in participating in research. Classical GT therefore provides patient-oriented researchers with a pragmatic methodological framework for engaging patients and generating rigorous evidence.
Operational Stress Injuries and the Mental Health and Well-Being of Veteran Spouses: A Scoping Review
