| Title |
Towards the use of mixed methods inquiry as best practice in health outcomes research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41687-018-0043-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antoine Regnault, Tom Willgoss, Skye Barbic, On behalf of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Mixed Methods Special Interest Group (SIG) |
| Abstract |
Mixed methods research (MMR) has found an increased interest in the field of health outcomes research. Consideration for both qualitative and quantitative perspectives has become key to contextualising patient experiences in a clinically meaningful measurement framework. The purpose of this paper is to outline a process for incorporating MMR in health outcomes research to guide stakeholders in their understanding of the essence of mixed methods inquiry. In addition, this paper will outline the benefits and challenges of MMR and describe the types of support needed for designing and conducting robust MMR measurement studies. MMR involves the application of a well-defined and pre-specified research design that articulates purposely and prospectively, qualitative and quantitative components to generate an integrated set of evidence addressing a single research question. Various methodological design options are possible depending on the research question. MMR designs allow a research question to be studied thoroughly from different perspectives. When applied, it allows the strengths of one approach to complement the restrictions of another. Among other applications, MMR can be used to enhance the creation of conceptual models and development of new instruments, to interpret the meaningfulness of outcomes in a clinical study from the patient perspective, and inform health care policy. Robust MMR requires research teams with experience in both qualitative and quantitative research. Moreover, a thorough understanding of the underlying principles of MMR is recommended at the point of study conception all the way through to implementation and knowledge dissemination. The framework outlined in this paper is designed to encourage health outcomes researchers to apply MMR to their research and to facilitate innovative, patient-centred methodological solutions to address the complex challenges of the field. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 8 | 28% |
| United States | 5 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 17% |
| Australia | 2 | 7% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 16 | 55% |
| Members of the public | 10 | 34% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 458 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 458 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 66 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 62 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 44 | 10% |
| Researcher | 32 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 26 | 6% |
| Other | 66 | 14% |
| Unknown | 162 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 70 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 42 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 9% |
| Psychology | 29 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 17 | 4% |
| Other | 89 | 19% |
| Unknown | 170 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,376,703
of 25,295,968 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#15
of 646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,672
of 335,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,295,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.