Designing A Mixed Methods Study In Primary Care

By J. D. Creswell, Michael D. Fetters, N. Ivankova. Annals of Family Medicine, 2004

995 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BACKGROUND Mixed methods or multimethod research holds potential for rigorous, methodologically sound investigations in primary care. The objective of this study was to use criteria from the literature to evaluate 5 mixed methods studies in primary care and to advance 3 models useful for designing such investigations. METHODS We first identified criteria from the social and behavioral sciences to analyze mixed methods studies in primary care research. We then used the criteria to evaluate 5 mixed methods investigations published in primary care research journals. RESULTS Of the 5 studies analyzed, 3 included a rationale for mixing based on the need to develop a quantitative instrument from qualitative data or to converge information to best understand the research topic. Quantitative data collection involved structured interviews, observational checklists, and chart audits that were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. Qualitative data consisted of semistructured interviews and field observations that were analyzed using coding to develop themes and categories. The studies showed diverse forms of priority: equal priority, qualitative priority, and quantitative priority. Data collection involved quantitative and qualitative data gathered both concurrently and sequentially. The integration of the quantitative and qualitative data in these studies occurred between data analysis from one phase and data collection from a subsequent phase, while analyzing the data, and when reporting the results. DISCUSSION We recommend instrument-building, triangulation, and data transformation models for mixed methods designs as useful frameworks to add rigor to investigations in primary care. We also discuss the limitations of our study and the need for future research.

Subfields: General Health Professions

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3bfd8dff62886dc99604d3fd05e85fc89f9aa4e7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

Citations in the corpus

Evaluating Mixed Research Studies: A Mixed Methods Approach (2010, methodology): “The design of this study was appropriate for the purpose of the study by using an instrument design model ( Creswell, Fetters, & Ivankova, 2004 ).”
Mixed Methods Approaches in Family Science Research (2008, methodology): “This design is often used when developing an instrument and is an essential aspect of the overall study (Creswell, 1999; Creswell et al., 2004).”
Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. (2013, background): “Research Questions and Mixed Methods in Health Services Research Health services research includes investigation of complex, multilevel processes, and systems that may require both quantitative and qualitative forms of data (Creswell, Fetters, and Ivankova 2004; Curry et al. 2013).”
Integration and Publications as Indicators of "Yield" From Mixed Methods Studies (2007, methodology): “Integration is a key aspect of mixed methods research (Creswell et al., 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).”
A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. (2009, background): “The use of mixed methods research increases in health sciences (Creswell et al., 2004).”
Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies (2010, background): “Integration—the interaction or conversation between the qualitative and quantitative components of a study—is an important aspect of mixed methods research, and, indeed, is essential to some definitions.”