This case describes a grounded theory study that explored 16 people’s experiences of using continuous positive airway pressure for sleep apnea. This treatment can be challenging, and there is concern that patient compliance is poor. Factors involved in non-compliance have been extensively explored. In contrast, this study identified how people live with treatment, which involves a process of individual change management underpinned by the substantive theory constructed from the study: bargaining and balancing life with continuous positive airway pressure. The theory comprises three main categories: becoming a team for good-sleep, making choices about continuous positive airway pressure, and becoming used to continuous positive airway pressure. Grounded theory research is considered an inductive process. However, scholars argue that deductive and abductive reasoning are also used during analysis. This case uses examples to support the use of different forms of reasoning in grounded theory. This case illustrates the implementation of different reasoning and outlines the practical aspects of applying inductive, deductive, and abductive thought to data analysis.
Analysis in Grounded Theory—How Is It Done? Examples From a Study That Explored Living With Treatment for Sleep Apnea