The grounded theory (GT) method is widely applied, yet frequently misunderstood. We outline the main variants of GT and dispel the most common myths associated with GT. We argue that the different variants of GT incorporate a core set of shared procedures that can be put to work by any researcher or team from their chosen ontological and epistemological perspective. This “shared core” of the GT method is articulated as the principles of (1) taking the word “grounded” seriously, (2) capturing and explaining context-related social processes, (3) pursuing theory through engagement with data, and (4) pursuing theory through theoretical sampling. In this article, we have put forward, in a nutshell, a distillation of core principles underpinning existing GT approaches that can aid further engagement with the different variants of GT. We are motivated by the wish to make GT more comprehensible and accessible, especially for researchers who are new to the method.

This study outlines the impact of COVID-19 on paediatric emergency department (ED) utilisation and assesses the extent of healthcare avoidance during each stage of the public health response strategy. Records from five EDs and one urgent care centre in Ireland, representing approximately 48% of national annual public paediatric ED attendances, are analysed to determine changes in characteristics of attendance during the three month period following the first reported COVID-19 case in Ireland, with reference to specific national public health stages. ED attendance reduced by 27–62% across all categories of diagnosis in the Delay phase and remained significantly below prior year levels as the country began Phase One of Reopening, with an incident rate ratio (IRR) of 0.58. The decrease was predominantly attributable to reduced attendance for injury and viral/viral induced conditions resulting from changed living conditions imposed by the public health response. However, attendance for complex chronic conditions also reduced and had yet to return to pre-COVID levels as reopening began. Attendances referred by general practitioners (GPs) dropped by 13 percentage points in the Delay phase and remained at that level. While changes in living conditions explain much of the decrease in overall attendance and in GP referrals, reduced attendance for complex chronic conditions may indicate avoidance behaviour and continued surveillance is necessary.

Theoretical sampling is a key procedure for theory building in the grounded theory method. Confusion about how to employ theoretical sampling in grounded theory can exist among researchers who use or who want to use the grounded theory method. We illustrate how we employed theoretical sampling in diverse grounded theory studies and answer key questions about theoretical sampling in grounded theory. We show how theoretical sampling functions in grounded theory and how it differs from sampling for data generation alone. We demonstrate how induction, retroduction, and abduction operate in grounded theory and how memoing drives theoretical sampling in the pursuit of theory. We explicate how theoretical sampling can contextualize data to build concepts and theory. Finally, we show how theoretical sampling in grounded theory operates in secondary analysis to derive theory that goes beyond the original purpose of data collection.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health guidance to reduce the spread of the disease have wide-reaching implications for children’s health and wellbeing. Furthermore, paediatric emergency departments (EDs) have rapidly adapted provision of care in response to the pandemic. This qualitative study utilized insight from multidisciplinary frontline staff to understand 1) the changes in paediatric emergency healthcare utilization during COVID-19 2) the experiences of working within the restructured health system. Methods Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with frontline staff working in two paediatric EDs and two mixed adult and children EDs. Participants included emergency medicine clinicians (n = 5), nursing managerial staff (n = 6), social workers (n = 2) and nursing staff (n = 2). Thematic Analysis (TA) was applied to the data to identify key themes. Results The pandemic and public health restrictions have had an adverse impact on children’s health and psychosocial wellbeing, compounded by difficulty in accessing primary and community services. The impact may have been more acute for children with disabilities and chronic health conditions and has raised child protection issues for vulnerable children. EDs have shown innovation and agility in the structural and operational changes they have implemented to continue to deliver care to children, however resource limitations and other challenges must be addressed to ensure high quality care delivery and protect the wellbeing of those tasked with delivering this care. Conclusions The spread of COVID-19 and subsequent policies to address the pandemic has had wide-reaching implications for children’s health and wellbeing. The interruption to health and social care services is manifesting in myriad ways in the ED, such as a rise in psychosocial presentations. As the pandemic continues to progress, policy makers and service providers must ensure the continued provision of essential health and social services, including targeted responses for those with existing conditions.

A decrease in attendance at emergency departments among paediatric populations has been reported during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The present study sought to understand parents’ hesitancy and concerns around accessing healthcare during the pandemic using a cross-sectional survey of parents of children under the age of 16 (N = 1044) in Ireland. Multinomial and logistic regression analyses were used to determine the factors that influenced avoidance and hesitancy. In total, 34% of participants stated that their child required healthcare during the pandemic, of whom 22% decided against seeking healthcare. Parents who reported being much more hesitant about accessing healthcare were more likely to report mild–moderate (Relative Risk Ratio (RRR) = 2.31, CI: 1.54–3.47) and severe–extremely severe stress (RRR: 3.37, CI: 1.81–6.27). Parents who understood government advice to mean avoiding health services were more likely to be hesitant to attend (RRR: 1.71, CI; 1.10–2.67). These effects held when restrictions were beginning to be lifted. Higher levels of stress were associated with a parent believing that the government advice meant that they should not attend health services (OR: 1.66, CI: 1.14–2.41). Public health messaging must ensure parents are reassured on the accessibility and safety of paediatric healthcare services as this public health emergency continues.

Interviewing is a frequently deployed data collection method in grounded theory research. Theoretical sampling is a core feature of the grounded theory method. Theoretical sampling is commonly understood as a means for sampling participants with a set of theoretical considerations in mind. However, theoretical sampling also occurs in the actual data generating process, for example through interviewing. Here, we illustrate how interviewing can be used as a vehicle for theoretical sampling. We discuss how to set up an interview study for it to be amenable to theoretical sampling. We show how interviewing and theoretical sampling align as the study proceeds and how interviewing in grounded theory can steer the course for theoretical sampling. We demonstrate how co-construction of data in grounded theory interviewing fuels theoretical sampling. Finally, we show that proceeding with questions for the purpose of theoretical sampling requires reflexivity and flexibility on the part of the researcher. We conclude that generating and analyzing data through the course of interviewing allows the researcher to probe into, expand on, and saturate key concepts and categories which collectively steer the inquiry and subsequent sampling. In the absence of theoretical sampling, it is not possible to grasp the basis for modifying interview questions or to decipher what or how questions should be asked, and for what purpose.

The relationship between class and intergenerational solidarities in the public and private spheres calls for further conceptual and theoretical development. This article discusses the findings from the first wave of a qualitative longitudinal study entitled , conducted in Ireland in 2011-2012, comprising 100 in-depth interviews with men and women across the age and socioeconomic spectrums. Constructivist grounded theory analysis of the data gives rise to the following postulates: (1) intergenerational solidarity at the family level is strongly contoured by socioeconomic status (SES); (2) intergenerational solidarity evolves as family generations observe each others' practices and adjust their expectations accordingly; (3) intergenerational solidarity within families is also shaped by the public sphere (the welfare state) that generates varying expectations and levels of solidarity regarding State supports for different age groups, again largely dependent on SES; (4) the liberal welfare state context, especially at a time of economic crisis, enhances the significance of intergenerational solidarity within families. We conclude by calling for research that is attuned to age/generation, gender class, and how these operate across the family and societal levels.

The Ethics of Research Related to Health Care in Developing Countries by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics makes a number of innovative recommendations that depart from codes such as the Declaration of Helsinki. It recommends that standards of care might be relativised to the standard of that nation. It recommends that very good reasons need to be given for not giving post-trial access to medications but recognises that there may be justifiable instances of this. It is the view of the authors that these and other recommendations of the report are sensible pieces of advice given the complexities of the developing world.