Multimethodology research with boys with severe haemophilia
Grounded theory Previous     Next

Multimethodology research with boys with severe haemophilia

Kate Khair Nurse consultant – haemophilia, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, University of Greenwich, London, UK
Charles Collier Social work student, University of Hull, UK
Liz Meerabeau Professor, Health care at the University of Greenwich, London, UK
Faith Gibson Professor, Children and young people’s cancer care at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, and London South Bank University, UK

Aim To describe the use of an innovative, multimethodological approach to exploring the day-to-day experiences of boys across a wide age range to better understand the effects of modern haemophilia treatment on their lives.

Background Children and young people with severe haemophilia can now be treated with prophylaxis and potentially have a lifestyle close to that of those without haemophilia. However, boys frequently describe living with haemophilia as burdensome.

Data sources The study, based on a grounded theory approach, was conducted with boys aged four to 16 years old, using research methods that included photo-elicitation, ‘draw and write’ techniques, focus groups run by participant co-researchers and individual interviews.

Review methods Grounded theory was used to enable rich data capture, through reshaping of research questions as theory developed.

Discussion The effectiveness of the methods used is discussed, along with consideration of the issues raised.

Conclusion These methods are effective for use with children. They can result in robust data and are also fun for child participants.

Implications for research/practice Understanding life with chronic disease from a child’s perspective can improve clinical care through a better understanding of health behaviour and lifestyle implications.

Nurse Researcher. 20, 6, 40-44. doi: 10.7748/nr2013.07.20.6.40.e318

Peer review

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

Conflict of interest

None declared

Received: 02 March 2012

Accepted: 08 October 2012

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in

OR

Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Subscribe
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Or