Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I enjoyed reading it and the topic is indeed methodologically important.

Strengths:
1. The paper is well written, structured, and understandable in its research process.
2. The topic is interesting, especially for qualitative nursing research with high use and impact of grounded theory approaches.
3. The paper is strong in its research design and the figures and tables are well suited to support the findings.

Weaknesses:
There are only a few notes, beginning with abbreviations.

1. Many abbreviations are used throughout the manuscript, sometimes inconsistently. Please reduce irregularities and harmonize for better readability. Here is what I found:
   p2, line 37: QI is already introduced in line 28.
   Table2, p.11: OCTN and RN are not introduced the first time they are used.
   Table2, p.12: same for PHN; OD is introduced, but not used
   Table2, p 13: same for FCN, OR
   Table 2, p14: introduction of known abbreviations RN and GT
   Throughout the table: missing legend for HQ, VHQ, and MQ

2. p6, line 34: You refer to the PRISMA statement, and cite Page & Moher (2017). Since this is not the most recent version of the PRISMA statement available, I wonder why you did not use PRISMA 2020 and thus include the citation search as an additional source of literature within a systematic review?

3. p. 26, lines 3-4: Thank you for bringing up the issue of philosophical positioning within study reporting. I understand your point, based on the epistemology of classical GT, that main area #2 of GUREGT is probably not relevant in study reporting. However, in my opinion, research findings are produced or, in Classic GT, emerge within the researcher's worldview or philosophical background. It is worthwhile to consider this background when interpreting and analyzing data. If it is even unclear how items 12 and 14 are used and understood within the reporting and evaluation of Classic GT, results may be in free fall, creative at best, but perhaps not intersubjectively plausible. How can one evaluate theoretical sensitivity and openness without this epistemological, methodological, and methodological information? I think it is important to briefly discuss these consequences and possible shortcomings in this section.

4. References: One book title is not italicized, another source is mentioned with 2 publication dates.