Mixed Method Research in Palliative Care

  • Catherine WalsheEmail author
Reference work entry


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.


  1. 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
  2. Bergenholtz H, Jarlbaek L, Hølge-Hazelton B. Generalist palliative care in hospital – cultural and organisational interactions. Results of a mixed-methods study. Palliat Med. 2016;30(6):558–66.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer J, Hunter A. Multimethod research: a synthesis of styles. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1989.Google Scholar
  4. Brown KM, Elliott SJ, Leatherdale ST, Robertson-Wilson J. Searching for rigour in the reporting of mixed methods population health research: a methodological review. Health Educ Res. 2015;30(6):811–39.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryman A. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qual Res. 2006;6(1):97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryman A. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(1):8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryman A. Social research methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  8. Burke Johnson R, Stefurak T. Considering the evidence-and-credibility discussion in evaluation through the Lens of dialectical pluralism. N Dir Eval. 2013;2013(138):37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burt J, Raine R. The effect of age on referral to and use of specialist palliative care services in adult cancer patients: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2006;35(5):469–76.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Burt J, Plant H, Omar R, Raine R. Equity of use of specialist palliative care by age: cross-sectional study of lung cancer patients. Palliat Med. 2010;24(6):641–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins KM, O’Cathain A. Introduction: ten points about mixed methods research to be considered by the novice researcher. Int J Mult Res Approach. 2009;3(1):2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Collins KM, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB. Securing a place at the table: a review and extension of legitimation criteria for the conduct of mixed research. Am Behav Sci. 2012;56(6):849–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coyle CE, Schulman-Green D, Feder S, Toraman S, Prust ML, Plano Clark VL, et al. Federal funding for mixed methods research in the health sciences in the United States: recent trends. J Mixed Methods Res. 2016. Scholar
  15. Creswell JW, Plano Clark V. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Sage: Los Angeles; 2018.Google Scholar
  16. Creswell J, Klassen A, Plano Clark V, Smith K, Research OoBaSS. Best practices for mixed methods research in the health science. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dalkin SM, Jones D, Lhussier M, et al. Understanding integrated care pathways in palliative care using realist evaluation: a mixed methods study protocol BMJ Open 2012;2:e001533. Scholar
  18. Dalkin SM, Lhussier M, Philipson P, Jones D, Cunningham W. Reducing inequalities in care for patients with non-malignant diseases: insights from a realist evaluation of an integrated palliative care pathway. Palliat Med. 2016;30(7):690–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. De Almeida Mello J, Hermans K, Van Audenhove C, Macq J, Declercq A. Evaluations of home care interventions for frail older persons using the interRAI home care instrument: a systematic review of the literature. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(2):173.e1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denscombe M. Communities of practice: a research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. J Mixed Methods Res. 2008;2(3):270–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. Scholar
  22. Fàbregues S, Molina-Azorín JF. Addressing quality in mixed methods research: a review and recommendations for a future agenda. Qual Quant. 2017;51(6):2847–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farquhar M, Higginson I, Fagan P, Booth S. The feasibility of a single-blinded fast-track pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention for breathlessness in advanced disease. BMC Palliat Care. 2009;8(1):9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farquhar MC, Ewing G, Booth S. Using mixed methods to develop and evaluate complex interventions in palliative care research. Palliat Med. 2011a;25(8):748–57.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6 Pt 2):2134–56.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flemming K, Adamson J, Atkin K. Improving the effectiveness of interventions in palliative care: the potential role of qualitative research in enhancing evidence from randomized controlled trials. Palliat Med. 2008;22(2):123–31.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Florczak KL. Purists need not apply: the case for pragmatism in mixed methods research. Nurs Sci Q. 2014;27(4):278–82.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14:15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greene JC. Advances in mixed-method evaluation: the challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997.Google Scholar
  34. Greene JC. Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Res School. 2006;13(1):93–8.Google Scholar
  35. Greene JC. Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Wiley; 2007.Google Scholar
  36. Greene JC. Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? J Mixed Methods Res. 2008;2(1):7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greene JC, Hall JN. Dialectics and pragmatism: being of consequence. In: Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Los Angeles: Sage; 2010. p. 119–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1989;11(3):255–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. Scholar
  40. Hermans K, Spruytte N, Cohen J, Van Audenhove C, Declercq A. Informed palliative care in nursing homes through the interRAI palliative care instrument: a study protocol based on the Medical Research Council framework. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14:132.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hermans K, Spruytte N, Cohen J, Van Audenhove C, Declercq A. Usefulness, feasibility and face validity of the interRAI palliative care instrument according to care professionals in nursing homes: a qualitative study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;62:90–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 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. Scholar
  43. 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).
  44. Highet G, Crawford D, Murray SA, Boyd K. Development and evaluation of the supportive and palliative care indicators tool (SPICT): a mixed-methods study. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2014;4(3):285–90.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Hosie A, Agar M, Lobb E, Davidson PM, Phillips J. Improving delirium recognition and assessment for people receiving inpatient palliative care: a mixed methods meta-synthesis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;75:123–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res. 2004;33(7):14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(2):112–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leech NL, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Combs JP. Writing publishable mixed research articles: guidelines for emerging scholars in the health sciences and beyond. Int J Mult Res Approaches. 2011;5(1):7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry, vol. 1985. Beverley Hills: Sage; 1985.Google Scholar
  51. Linnan L, Steckler A. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Maxwell JA, Mittapalli K. Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In: Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010. p. 145–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage; 1984.Google Scholar
  56. Morgan DL. Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: applications to health research. Qual Health Res. 1998;8(3):362–76.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Morgan DL. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(1):48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morita T, Miyashita M, Yamagishi A, Akizuki N, Kizawa Y, Shirahige Y, et al. A region-based palliative care intervention trial using the mixed-method approach: Japan OPTIM study. BMC Palliat Care. 2012;11(1):2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morita T, Miyashita M, Yamagishi A, Akiyama M, Akizuki N, Hirai K, et al. Effects of a programme of interventions on regional comprehensive palliative care for patients with cancer: a mixed-methods study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):638–46.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(2):92–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. O’Cathain A, Nicholl J, Murphy E. Structural issues affecting mixed methods studies in health research: a qualitative study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341:c4587.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006;332(7538):413–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB. The validity issue in mixed research. Res Schools. 2006;13(1):48–63.Google Scholar
  67. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL. Validity and qualitative research: an oxymoron? Qual Quant. 2007;41(2):233–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB, Collins KM. Assessing legitimation in mixed research: a new framework. Qual Quant. 2011;45(6):1253–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Östlund U, Kidd L, Wengström Y, Rowa-Dewar N. Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48(3):369–83.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2002.Google Scholar
  71. Pearson A, White H, Bath-Hextall F, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):121–31.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Pelto PJ. What is so new about mixed methods? Qual Health Res. 2015;25(6):734–45.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(4):529–46.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. Sale JE, Lohfeld LH, Brazil K. Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qual Quant. 2002;36(1):43–53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Knafl G. On quantitizing. Journal of mixed methods research. 2009;3(3):208–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Leeman J, Crandell JL. Mapping the mixed methods-mixed research synthesis terrain. J Mixed Methods Res. 2012;6(4):317–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Selman L, Speck P, Gysels M, Agupio G, Dinat N, Downing J, et al. ‘Peace’ and ‘life worthwhile’ as measures of spiritual well-being in African palliative care: a mixed-methods study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):94.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stefurak T, Burke Johnson R, Shatto E. Mixed methods and dialectical pluralism. In: Handbook of methodological approaches to community-based research: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tariq S, Woodman J. Using mixed methods in health research. JRSM Short Rep. 2013;4(6). Scholar
  82. Tashakkori A, Cresswell JW. The new era of mixed methods. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(1):5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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.
  85. 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
  86. Walshe C, Dodd S, Hill M, Ockenden N, Payne S, Preston N, et al. How effective are volunteers at supporting people in their last year of life? A pragmatic randomised wait-list trial in palliative care (ELSA). BMC Med. 2016c;14(1):203.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. White C, Hardy J. Gatekeeping from palliative care research trials. Prog Palliat Care. 2008;16(4):167–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wisdom JP, Cavaleri MA, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Green CA. Methodological reporting in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods health services research articles. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(2):721–45.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Observatory on End of Life CareLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations