Advertisement

Mixed Methods Research in Pharmacy Practice

  • Cristín RyanEmail author
  • Cathal Cadogan
  • Carmel Hughes
Chapter

Abstract

Irrespective of the field of research, the underpinning methodologies used are critical in generating high quality data and evidence. Most importantly, the method selected should answer the research question that has been posed. It is important to accept that no single method will answer all research questions, and in the field of health services and pharmacy practice research, there may be a number of questions that will form part of an overarching programme or project. In such circumstances, more than one method will be required to answer all the research questions within a single project or programme, an approach known as mixed methods.

This chapter provides an overview of the current definition of mixed methods research and the advantages and limitations of this approach. The importance of mixed methods research in pharmacy practice and the required consideration when designing and analysing a mixed methods research study or programme are outlined. The various typologies of mixed methods research using illustrative examples from the pharmacy practice research literature are described, and guidance is provided on choosing the most applicable typology for a given research question.

Keywords

Mixed methods Mixed methodology Multi-methods Multi-strategy Mixed methodology Sequential explanatory Sequential exploratory Concurrent design Convergent parallel Embedded design Pharmacy practice 

References

  1. Bryman A (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qual Res 6:97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cameron K, Feinberg JL, Lapane KL (2002) Fleetwood project Phase III moves forward. Consult Pharm 17:181–198Google Scholar
  3. Creswell JW, Fetters MD, Ivankova NV (2004) Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Ann Fam Med 2:7–11CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Denzin NK (1989) The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, ISBN 10: 0137743815; ISBN 13: 9780137743810Google Scholar
  5. Driscoll DL, Appiah-Yeboah A, Salib P, Rupter DJ (2007) Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: how to and why not. Ecol Environ Anthropol 3:19–27Google Scholar
  6. Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, Eyles J (2006) Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res 16:377–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW (2013) Achieving integration in mixed methods designs–principles and practices. Health Serv Res 48:2134–2156CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fitzgerald N, McCaig DJ, Watson H, Thomson D, Stewart DC (2008) Development, implementation and evaluation of a pilot project to deliver interventions on alcohol issues in community pharmacies. Int J Pharm Pract 16:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flick U (2009) Qualitative research at work II: triangulation. In: Flick U (ed) An introduction to qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Flick U, Garms-Homolova V, Herrmann WJ, Kuck J, Rohnsch G (2012) “I can’t prescribe something just because someone asks for it…”: using mixed methods in the framework of triangulation. J Mixed Methods Res 6:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hadi MA, Alldred DP, Closs SJ, Briggs M (2013) Mixed-methods research in pharmacy practice: basics and beyond (part 1). Int J Pharm Pract 21:341–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hadi MA, Alldred DP, Closs SJ, Briggs M (2014) Mixed-methods research in pharmacy practice: recommendations for quality reporting (part 2). Int J Pharm Pract 22:96–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24:602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA (2007) Towards a definition of mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res 1(2):112–133. doi: 10.1177/1558689806298224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krska J, Mackridge AJ (2014) Involving the public and other stakeholders in development and evaluation of a community pharmacy alcohol screening and brief advice service. Public Health 128:309–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. McCann L, Haughey S, Parsons C, Lloyd F, Crealey G, Gormley G, Hughes CM (2011) Pharmacist prescribing in Northern Ireland–a quantitative assessment. Int J Clin Pharm 33:824–831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. McCann L, Haughey S, Parsons C, Lloyd F, Crealey G, Gormley G, Hughes CM (2012a) “They come with multiple morbidities” – a qualitative assessment of pharmacist prescribing. J Interprof Care 26:127–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McCann L, Haughey S, Parsons C, Lloyd F, Crealey G, Gormley G, Hughes C (2012b) A patient perspective of pharmacist prescribing: “crossing the specialisms-crossing the illnesses”. Health Expect. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12101
  19. Medical Research Council (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance http://www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/complex-interventions-guidance/
  20. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A (2005) Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 14:26–33CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, Wood C (2013) The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med 46:81–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Morgan DL (1998) Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: applications to health research. Qual Health Res 8:362–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ó Catháin AO, Murphy E, Nicholl J (2010) Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ 341:1147–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Östlund U, Kidd L, Wengström Y, Rowa-Dewar N (2011) Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud 48:369–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Patterson SM, Hughes CM, Lapane KL (2007) Assessment of a United States pharmaceutical care model for nursing homes in the United Kingdom. Pharm World Sci 29:517–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Patterson SM, Hughes CM, Crealey G, Cardwell C, Lapane K (2010) An evaluation of an adapted United States model of pharmaceutical care to improve psychoactive prescribing for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood NI Study). J Am Geriatr Soc 58:44–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Patterson SM, Hughes CM, Cardwell C, Lapane K, Murray AM, Crealey GE (2011) An evaluation of an adapted United States model of pharmaceutical care for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood NI Study): a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 59:586–593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Patterson SM, Cadogan CA, Kerse N, Cardwell CR, Bradley MC, Ryan C, Hughes C (2014) Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (10):CD008165Google Scholar
  29. Ramsay AIG, Turner S, Cavell G, Oborbe CA, Thomas RW, Cookson G, Fulop NJ (2014) Governing patient safety: lessons learned from a mixed methods evaluation of implementing a ward level medication safety scorecard in two English NHS hospitals. BMJ Qual Saf 23:136–146CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ritchie J, Spencer L (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess TG (eds) Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross S, Hamiltion L, Ryan C, Bond C (2012) Who makes prescribing decisions in hospital inpatients? An observational study. Postgrad Med J 88:507–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ross S, Ryan C, Duncan EM, Francis JJ, Johnston M, Ker JS, Lee AJ, Macleod MJ, Maxwell S, McKay G, Mclay J, Webb D (2013) Perceived causes of prescribing errors by junior doctors in hospital inpatients: a study from the PROTECT programme. BMJ Qual Saf 22:97–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ryan C, Ross S, Davey P, Duncan E, Fielding S, Francis JJ, Johnston M, Ker J, Lee AJ, MacLeod MJ, Maxwell S, McKay G, McLay J, Webb D, Bond C (2013) Junior doctors’ perceptions of prescribing errors: rates, causes and self-efficacy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 76:980–987CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryan C, Ross S, Davey P, Duncan EM, Francis JJ, Fielding S, Johnston M, Ker J, Lee AJ, MacLeod MY, Maxwell S, McKay G, McLay JS, Webb DJ, Bond C (2014) Prevalence and causes of prescribing errors: the Prescribing Outcomes for Trainee Doctors Engaged in Clinical Training (PROTECT) study. PLoS One 9(1):e79802. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079802 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sackett DL (1997) Choosing the best research design for each question. BMJ 315:1636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7123.1636
  36. Tashakkori A, Creswell JW (2007) Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. J Mixed Method 1:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PharmacyQueen’s University BelfastBelfastNorthern Ireland

Personalised recommendations