Methodological Reporting in Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Health Services Research Articles

Abstract

Objectives Methodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles. Data Sources All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals. Study Design All mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e.g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component. Principal Findings Mixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (χ2(1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (χ2(1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively). Conclusion Few published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.

Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research

“…First, many mixed methods studies in health services research and implementation science do not clearly identify or provide a rationale for the sampling procedure for either quantitative or qualitative components of the study (Wisdom et al, 2011), so a primary recommendation is for researchers to clearly describe their sampling strategies and provide the rationale for the strategy.…”

Use of Mixed Methods Research in Research on Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, and Hypertension

“…13,14 One published metareview included an analysis of all published articles in 4 health services research journals, 15 and another aimed to review all published mixed methods studies within the area of health research. 16 The use of various mixed methods designs and techniques in published reports of healthcare research has been well summarized within the field of mental health, 17 but focused metareviews of published mixed methods studies within other topic areas in health research, such as cardiovascular diseases, are lacking.…”

Mixed Methods in CAM Research: A Systematic Review of Studies Published in 2012

“…Some reviews have also found low numbers of mixed methods studies in primary care [22], mental health nursing [21], and health services research [18]. In comparison, other reviews suggest mixed methods are used more often: one review of UK-funded health services research found that 18% of studies are mixed methods [17]; nursing and education journals publish more mixed methods studies (16%) than psychology and sociology journals (6%) [19].…”

“…Previous reviews have described the prevalence and quality of mixed methods studies in health services research [16][17][18], social and behavioural sciences [19,20], and various biomedical disciplines [21][22][23]. The purpose of this review was to provide a critical overview of the current state of mixed methods research in CAM.…”