↓ Skip to main content

How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
54 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
718 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 718 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 7 <1%
Malaysia 4 <1%
South Africa 4 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
India 3 <1%
Indonesia 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Other 9 1%
Unknown 672 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 196 27%
Student > Master 154 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 103 14%
Researcher 45 6%
Student > Postgraduate 43 6%
Other 177 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 156 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 128 18%
Psychology 81 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 76 11%
Unspecified 56 8%
Other 221 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 15 February 2019.
All research outputs
#469,302
of 13,458,925 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#54
of 1,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,705
of 159,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,458,925 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 1,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 159,067 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them