Mixed Method Research in Palliative Care
This chapter focuses on the use of mixed methods research designs in palliative care. Mixing methods is increasing in popularity as a research approach, but study quality can be poor. This chapter highlights key issues and resources for those interested in mixed methods research, to encourage researchers to focus on important principles and debates to inform study planning. First, the defining features of mixed methods research are explored and definitions presented. Second, the paradigm challenges of mixed methods research are discussed, with a focus on current epistemological thinking in the area. Third, the issues of design are presented. This includes consideration of the purpose of mixed methods studies, a continuum of study characteristics, and a typology of core mixed methods designs. Approaches to mixing data are given particular consideration. Barriers to high-quality mixed methods studies are presented and recommendations on mixed methods research in palliative care discussed. Throughout, contemporary examples from palliative care mixed methods research are used to illustrate key points.
- Bausewein C, Daveson BA, Currow DC, Downing J, Deliens L, Radbruch L, et al. EAPC white paper on outcome measurement in palliative care: improving practice, attaining outcomes and delivering quality services – recommendations from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) task force on outcome measurement. Palliat Med. 2016;30(1):6–22.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Brewer J, Hunter A. Multimethod research: a synthesis of styles. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1989.Google Scholar
- Bryman A. Social research methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
- Collins KM, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Sutton IL. A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learn Disabil: Contemp J. 2006;4(1):67–100.Google Scholar
- Creswell JW, Plano Clark V. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Sage: Los Angeles; 2018.Google Scholar
- Dodd S, Hill M, Ockenden N, Algorta GP, Preston N, Payne S, Walshe C. ‘Being with’ or ‘doing for’? How the role of an end-of-life volunteer befriender can impact patient wellbeing: interviews from a multiple qualitative case study (ELSA). Support Care Cancer 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4169-2PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Farquhar M, Prevost AT, McCrone P, Higginson I, Gray J, Brafman-Kennedy B, et al. Study protocol: phase III single-blinded fast-track pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention for breathlessness in advanced disease. Trials. 2011b;12(1):130.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Farquhar M, Preston N, Evans CJ, Grande G, Short V, Benalia H, et al. Mixed methods research in the development and evaluation of complex interventions in palliative and end-of-life care: report on the MORECare consensus exercise. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(12):1550–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Farquhar MC, Prevost AT, McCrone P, Brafman-Price B, Bentley A, Higginson IJ, et al. Is a specialist breathlessness service more effective and cost-effective for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care? Findings of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial. BMC Med. 2014;12:194.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Farquhar MC, Prevost AT, McCrone P, Brafman-Price B, Bentley A, Higginson IJ, et al. The clinical and cost effectiveness of a breathlessness intervention service for patients with advanced non-malignant disease and their informal carers: mixed findings of a mixed method randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17(1):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Greene JC. Advances in mixed-method evaluation: the challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997.Google Scholar
- Greene JC. Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Res School. 2006;13(1):93–8.Google Scholar
- Greene JC. Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Wiley; 2007.Google Scholar
- Guo Q, Chochinov HM, McClement S, Thompson G, Hack T. Development and evaluation of the dignity talk question framework for palliative patients and their families: a mixed-methods study. Palliat Med. 2018;32(1):195–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317734696.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Hermans K, De Almeida Mello J, Spruytte N, Cohen J, Van Audenhove C, Declercq A. Does using the interRAI palliative care instrument reduce the needs and symptoms of nursing home residents receiving palliative care? Palliat Support Care. 2018;16(1):32–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951517000153.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Higginson I, Evans C, Grande G, Preston N, Morgan M, McCrone P, et al. Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews. BMC Med. 2014;11(111). https://doi.org/10.1186/741-7015-11-111.
- Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study BMJ 2009; 339 :b3496Google Scholar
- Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry, vol. 1985. Beverley Hills: Sage; 1985.Google Scholar
- Linnan L, Steckler A. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002.Google Scholar
- Maxwell JA, Loomis DM. Mixed methods design: an alternative approach. In: Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, vol. 1. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. p. 241–72.Google Scholar
- Mertens DM. Mixed methods and the politics of human research: the transformative-emancipatory perspective. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. p. 135–64.Google Scholar
- Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage; 1984.Google Scholar
- Morse JM. Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 1. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. p. 189–208.Google Scholar
- Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB. The validity issue in mixed research. Res Schools. 2006;13(1):48–63.Google Scholar
- Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2002.Google Scholar
- Preston NJ, Fayers P, Walters SJ, Pilling M, Grande GE, Short V, et al. Recommendations for managing missing data, attrition and response shift in palliative and end-of-life care research: part of the MORECare research method guidance on statistical issues. Palliat Med. 2013;27(10):899–907.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Preston NJ, Farquhar MC, Walshe CE, Stevinson C, Ewing G, Calman LA, et al. Strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016(2).Google Scholar
- Walshe C, Algorta GP, Dodd S, Hill M, Ockenden N, Payne S. Protocol for the end-of-life social action study (ELSA): a randomised wait-list controlled trial and embedded qualitative case study evaluation assessing the causal impact of social action befriending services on end of life experience. BMC Palliat Care. 2016a; 15:60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-016-0134-3.
- Walshe CD, Dodd S, Hill M, Ockenden N, Payne S, Perez Algorta G, Preston N. What is the impact of social action befriending services at the end-of-life? Evaluation of the end of life social action fund. Lancaster: Lancaster University; 2016b.Google Scholar
- Zweers D, de Graaf E, Teunissen S. Suitable support for anxious hospice patients: what do nurses ‘know’, ‘do’ and ‘need’? An explanatory mixed method study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative CarePublished Online First: 30 June 2017. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2016-001187.