Abstract
Grounded theory methodology is frequently applied in health research, yet studies contending with contextual constraints may require a more pragmatic approach, including potential methodologic divergence and modifications of method choice and application. Dissemination of a detailed documentation and justification of methodologic choices, and specific method modifications and/or innovations, are uncommon in extant literature; however, a more expansive approach to such reporting has the potential to enhance research practices, increase transparency, and contribute to the ongoing discourse around research approaches and rigor. Here, we articulate our methodologic decision-making and methods, including modifications, as applied to the qualitative strand of an explanatory mixed-methods study. The primary aim of this article is to contribute to the discourse and collective learning around methodology and method choices and modifications by presenting one approach to applying a constructivist-oriented, modified version of grounded theory analytic methods through a worked qualitative study example.