Moving From Randomized Controlled Trials to Mixed Methods Intervention Evaluations

Abstract

This chapter explores why mixed methods intervention evaluations are needed when undertaking randomized controlled trials in order to address a wide range of questions relevant to understanding the effectiveness of an intervention. It provides a description of three different frameworks describing different ways in which mixed methods intervention evaluations may be undertaken within the context of a randomized controlled trial: the temporal framework; the process-outcome framework, which includes process evaluations; and the "aspects of a trial" framework. The chapter considers how the language used to describe qualitative research undertaken with trials can represent different underlying assumptions about the relative value of the qualitative research in relation to the trial. The chapter concludes with a discussion of some of the challenges that arise when undertaking mixed method intervention evaluations and the value of including qualitative research in systematic reviews of trials via evidence synthesis.

Adding quality to quantity in randomized controlled trials of addiction prevention and treatment: a new framework to facilitate the integration of qualitative research

“…This obliges funders and lead investigators to budget appropriately and to include experienced qualitative researchers as equals in study teams . Qualitative research is not undertaken simply to ‘enhance' the trial ; RCTs and qualitative studies fulfil different roles and are complementary . Reflecting this, our framework facilitates a better understanding of how to combine qualitative research and addiction trials, in particular by enabling researchers and funders to appreciate that one qualitative study cannot ‘do everything', and multiple qualitative studies may be needed in order to optimize both the intervention and the trial.…”

Establishing Entrepreneurial Thinking and Acting in Swiss Vocational Colleges

“…It aims to prepare teachers to implement specific curricula or programs with their students by combining theoretical work and practical, hands-on experience. Evaluation studies targeting outcomes of teacher trainings (i.e., summative evaluations) have been conducted on varying levels of scientific rigor, ranging from participantsí self-reports on content and quality of program delivery and program satisfaction (e.g., Davis, Preston, & Sahin, 2009) to Randomized Controlled Trials (e.g., Murphy, Weinhardt, & Wyness, 2020), the latter often seen as representing the ìgold standardî of evaluations of intervention effectiveness (Drabble & OíCathain, 2015). Process evaluation studies of teacher trainings have used mainly qualitative and mixed-methods approaches (e.g., Ahmed, Flisher, Mathews, Jansen, Mukoma, & Schaalma, 2006).…”

“Mixed Methods in my Bones”: Transcending the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide

“…If epistemological differences were the foundation to the bifurcation of qualitative and quantitative, where might they now sit in a less divided world? This is a world where even those conducting a "gold standard" randomised control trial are viewed as needing to gather experiential data as well as observable outcome data in order to really understand what effect an intervention is having and how it is doing that (Donovan et al, 2002;Drabble & O'Cathain, 2015;Plano Clark et al, 2013;Rogers, 2011;Song et al, 2010). Indeed, an experiment can be conducted using only qualitative data (Robinson & Mendelson, 2012), and although studies of causality can benefit from assessing statistical associations, they are not dependent on them (Maxwell, 2004(Maxwell, , 2012.…”