scholarly journals Methodological Challenges of Mixed Methods Intervention Evaluations

Methodology ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 119-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hennie R. Boeije ◽  
Sarah J. Drabble ◽  
Alicia O’Cathain

Abstract. This paper addresses the methodological challenges that accompany the use of a combination of research methods to evaluate complex interventions. In evaluating complex interventions, the question about effectiveness is not the only question that needs to be answered. Of equal interest are questions about acceptability, feasibility, and implementation of the intervention and the evaluation study itself. Using qualitative research in conjunction with trials enables us to address this diversity of questions. The combination of methods results in a mixed methods intervention evaluation (MMIE). In this article we demonstrate the relevance of mixed methods evaluation studies and provide case studies from health care. Methodological challenges that need our attention are, among others, choosing appropriate designs for MMIEs, determining realistic expectations of both components, and assigning adequate resources to both components. Solving these methodological issues will improve our research designs and provide further insights into complex interventions.

BJGP Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen18X101421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Bryce ◽  
Joanna Fleming ◽  
Joanne Reeve

BackgroundThe NHS is facing increasing needs from an aging population, which is acutely visible in the emerging problem of frailty. There is growing evidence describing new models of care for people living with frailty, but a lack of evidence on successful implementation of these complex interventions at the practice level.AimThis study aimed to determine what factors enable or prevent implementation of a whole-system, complex intervention for managing frailty (the PACT initiative) in the UK primary care setting.Design & settingA mixed-methods evaluation study undertaken within a large clinical commissioning group (CCG). Design and analysis was informed by normalisation process theory (NPT).MethodData collection from six sites included: observation of delivery, interviews with staff, and an online survey. NPT-informed analysis sought to identify enablers and barriers to implementation of change.ResultsSeven themes were identified. PACT was valued by professionals and patients but a lack of clarity on its aims was identified as a barrier to implementation. Successful implementation relied on champions pushing the work forward, and dealing with unanticipated resistance. Contracts focused on delivery of service outcomes, but these were sometimes at odds with professional priorities. Implementation followed evidence-informed rather than evidence-based practice, requiring redesign of the intervention and potentially created a new body of knowledge on managing frailty.ConclusionSuccessful implementation of complex interventions in primary care need inbuilt capacity for flexibility and adaptability, requiring expertise as well as evidence. Professionals need to be supported to translate innovative practice into practice-based evidence.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. e0224951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire van der Westhuizen ◽  
Bronwyn Myers ◽  
Megan Malan ◽  
Tracey Naledi ◽  
Marinda Roelofse ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 764-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liam J Caffery ◽  
Melinda Martin-Khan ◽  
Victoria Wade

Mixed methods research is important to health services research because the integrated qualitative and quantitative investigation can give a more comprehensive understanding of complex interventions such as telehealth than can a single-method study. Further, mixed methods research is applicable to translational research and program evaluation. Study designs relevant to telehealth research are described and supported by examples. Quality assessment tools, frameworks to assist in the reporting and review of mixed methods research, and related methodologies are also discussed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 816-816
Author(s):  
Su-I Hou

Abstract This paper introduces the rapidly growing modern mixed methods research (MMR) and its application in a Chinese cancer screening program. While some previous researchers have incorporated quantitative and qualitative data in research, recent mixed methods developments have provided significant clarity that can guide those new to the MMR field. Understanding the context for using MMR and examining a complex mixed methods evaluation study in Taiwan can help illustrate opportunities for and application of mixed methods in Asians. The Taiwan Cervical Cancer Screening Education Program is used as an exemplar of a multi-phase complex mixed methods evaluation study showcasing various MMR designs. These include an exploratory sequential design to develop culturally sensitive study instrument, iterative concurrent and sequential mixed methods for intervention mapping, and an embedded mixed methods evaluation design to assess impact. Visual diagrams are introduced to facilitate communication of mixed methods design procedures and products in each phase.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia F Corbett ◽  
Elizabeth M Combs ◽  
Peyton S Chandarana ◽  
Isabel Stringfellow ◽  
Karen Worthy ◽  
...  

UNSTRUCTURED REMOVE


Author(s):  
Alicia O'Cathain

The use of frameworks and study designs can help researchers to plan their studies, communicate them to other researchers and wider stakeholders, and build up a methodological knowledge base to improve specific research designs. In this chapter, different frameworks and study designs are discussed in three contexts: describing evaluations or the whole study, describing the combination of qualitative research and RCTs, and describing the qualitative research when used alongside an RCT. The label ‘mixed methods evaluation’ is proposed for describing the whole study when qualitative research and RCTs are combined. Different labels for describing the relationship between qualitative research and RCTs within a mixed methods evaluation are then explored. Finally, researchers have started to produce guidance to help others to undertake qualitative research with RCTs. This guidance is briefly introduced here in relation to the frameworks introduced in the earlier parts of the chapter.


2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Tino Kulnik ◽  
Heide Pöstges ◽  
Lucinda Brimicombe ◽  
John Hammond ◽  
Fiona Jones

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document