This paper explores the differences and similarities that may exist in respect of using the interview method in phenomenological and grounded theory methodologies. Baker et al. set out to differentiate between method in grounded theory and phenomenology and concluded that it was essential to ensure that the method matches the research question being asked. However, the paper, whilst clear in intent to differentiate between the methodologies of phenomenology and grounded theory, does little to help the researcher in the differences that may exist in carrying out such research using the same method, that is, interviewing. Interviewing has become synonymous with qualitative research and may become the accepted method of data collection irrespective of methodology. We postulate that the interview as a method of data collection may be inconsistent with the underlying principles of the methodology (phenomenology or grounded theory). Should this be the case then the interview as a means of collecting data may be viewed as generic and lack a clear connection to the methodological framework. Such a position could be consistent with a critique of qualitative nursing research on the grounds of rigour.

BackgroundAccess to health services is an important health determinant. New research in health equity is required, especially amongst economic migrants from developing countries. Studies conducted on the use of health services by migrant populations highlight existing gaps in understanding which factors affect access to these services from a qualitative perspective. We aim to describe the views of the migrants regarding barriers and determinants of access to health services in the international literature (1997–2011).MethodsA systematic review was conducted for Qualitative research papers (English/Spanish) published in 13 electronic databases. A selection of articles that accomplished the inclusion criteria and a quality evaluation of the studies were carried out. The findings of the selected studies were synthesised by means of metasynthesis using different analysis categories according to Andersen’s conceptual framework of access and use of health services and by incorporating other emergent categories.ResultsWe located 3,025 titles, 36 studies achieved the inclusion criteria. After quality evaluation, 28 articles were definitively synthesised. 12 studies (46.2%) were carried out in the U.S and 11 studies (42.3%) dealt with primary care services. The participating population varied depending mainly on type of host country. Barriers were described, such as the lack of communication between health services providers and migrants, due to idiomatic difficulties and cultural differences. Other barriers were linked to the economic system, the health service characteristics and the legislation in each country. This situation has consequences for the lack of health control by migrants and their social vulnerability.ConclusionsEconomic migrants faced individual and structural barriers to the health services in host countries, especially those with undocumented situation and those experimented idiomatic difficulties. Strategies to improve the structures of health systems and social policies are needed.

No abstract

No abstract

There is a greater need to understand nursing models within the framework of the three-model typology and to reconsider their introduction and use in this context.