Mixed Method Designs in Implementation Research

By L. A. Palinkas, Gregory A. Aarons, S. Horwitz, P. Chamberlain, Michael S. Hurlburt, J. Landsverk. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 2010

1,029 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper describes the application of mixed method designs in implementation research in 22 mental health services research studies published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 5 years. Our analyses revealed 7 different structural arrangements of qualitative and quantitative methods, 5 different functions of mixed methods, and 3 different ways of linking quantitative and qualitative data together. Complexity of design was associated with number of aims or objectives, study context, and phase of implementation examined. The findings provide suggestions for the use of mixed method designs in implementation research.

Subfields: General Health Professions

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8200c449c5be438a719a7be00e4c54a11f1b3e59

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

Implementation Mapping: Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Implementation Strategies (2019, positive): “The use of mixed methods approaches is particularly useful for evaluating implementation outcomes (52, 53); quantitative approaches can help confirm hypthesized relationships between implementation strategies, their impact on determinants, and the subsequent impact on implementation outcomes, while ”
Odd Couple? Reenvisioning the Relation Between Science and Practice in the Dissemination-Implementation Era (2014, methodology): “Some of this work may require qualitative methods, which can generate testable hypotheses about facilitators of DI in service settings (Palinkas et al., 2011).”
Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research (2015, methodology): “A re-examination of the 22 studies and an additional 6 studies published since 2009 revealed that only 5 studies (Aarons and Palinkas 2007; Bachman et al. 2009; Palinkas et al. 2011c; Palinkas et al. 2012; Slade et al. 2008) made a specific reference to purposeful sampling.”
Qualitative Methods in Implementation Research: An Introduction (2019, methodology): “…designs (i.e., designs that incorporate both quantitative and qualitative methods) (Mazzucca et al., 2018); excellent guidance is available on these designs (see, e.g., Aarons et al., 2011; Green et al., 2015; Hoagwood et al., 2015; Palinkas et al., 2011; Palinkas 2014; Palinkas et al., 2019).”
An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation (2017, methodology): “There is considerable debate as to whether and to what extent designs involving randomized assignment should be used in dissemination and implementation studies (79), as well as the relative contributions of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (83).”
The Experience of COVID-19 and Its Impact on Teachers’ Mental Health, Coping, and Teaching (2021, background): “…quantitative items, which aimed to characterize the typical experience of teachers during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as qualitative items, which were intended to confirm, provide a deeper understanding of, and contextualize the quantitative findings (Palinkas et al., 2011).”