Abstract
An increased focus on patient-centered care as a means for enhancing patient safety and improving health care quality calls for a meaningful intersection of research approaches that integrate different methodologies, incorporate participatory methods, and allow for a cyclical approach to addressing pertinent issues from a stakeholder perspective. Intersecting or meaningfully combining mixed methods research (MMR) and community-based participatory action research (CBPAR) within a study provides an effective conceptual and methodological premise to promote patient-centeredness and to enhance patient-centered research. The chapter discusses how a meaningful intersection of MMR and CBPAR at the epistemological, axiological, methodological, and design levels provides an effective framework for promoting patient-centeredness and enhancing stakeholder engagement with research and its outcomes. A short overview of MMR and CBPAR is followed by a discussion of the four levels of intersection between the two approaches and the logistics of designing and implementing a mixed methods action research (MMAR) study guided by an MMR framework for CBPAR. Tips for researchers to consider when designing studies that intersect MMR and CBPAR are provided organized by four intersection levels.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2015). The SAGE handbook of action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Breimaier, H. E., Halfens, R. J., & Lohrmann, C. (2015). Effectiveness of multifaceted and tailored strategies to implement a fall-prevention guideline into acute care nursing practice: A before-and-after, mixed-method study using a participatory action research approach. BMC Nursing, 14(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-015-0064-z.
Brewer, S. E., Crump, N. M., & O'Leary, S. T. (2019). Patient-centered research priorities: A mixed-methods approach from the Colorado children’s outcomes network (COCONet). The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 32(5), 674–684.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., Smith, K. C., & for the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. (2018). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from: Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences (nih.gov).
Currall, S. C., & Towler, A. J. (2003). Research methods in management and organizational research: Toward integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 513–526). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Duesbery, L., & Twyman, T. (2020). 100 questions (and answers) about action research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Green, C. A., Duan, N., Gibbons, R. D., Hoagwood, K. E., Palinkas, L. A., & Wisdom, J. P. (2015). Approaches to mixed methods dissemination and implementation research: Methods, strengths, caveats, and opportunities. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42, 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0552-6.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
Hacker, K. (2013). Community-based participatory research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hinchey, P. H. (2008). Action research: Primer. New York: Peter Lang.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10027/crossing-the-quality-chasm-a-new-health-system-for-the.
Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (2001). Community-based participatory research: Policy recommendations for promoting a partnership. Approach in Health Research Education for Health, 14(2), 182–197.
Ivankova, N. V. (2015). Mixed methods applications in action research: From methods to community action. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Ivankova, N. V. (2017). Applying mixed methods in community-based action research: A framework for engaging stakeholders with research as means for promoting patient-centeredness. Journal of Nursing Research, 22(4), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987117699655.
Ivankova, N.V., & Johnson, S.L. (2021, in press). Designing integrated mixed methods action research studies. In J. Hitchcock & A. Onwuegbuzie (Eds.), Routledge Handbook for Advancing Integration in Mixed Methods Research. UK: Routledge.
Ivankova, N. V., & Wingo, N. (2018). Applying mixed methods in action research: Methodological potentials and advantages. The American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 978–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772673.
Ivankova, N. V., Herbey, I., & Roussel, L. (2018). Theory and practice of using mixed methods in translational research: A cross-disciplinary perspective. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1) http://ijmra.org/inaugural-special-issue/.
Johnson, R. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11, 156–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607692.
Johnson, B., & Gray, R. (2010). A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 69–94). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Johnson, S., & Ivankova, N. V. (2019). Intersecting mixed methods and action research to evaluate a community-based care coordination service: Implications for designing stakeholder-informed and context-specific health services research studies. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 11(1) https://ijmra.org/volume-11-number-1-april-2019/.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
Kemmis, S. (Ed.). (1982). The action research reader. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Koshy, E., Koshy, V., & Waterman, H. (2011). Action research in healthcare. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kral, M. J., & Allen, J. (2015). Community-based participatory action research. In L. A. Jason & D. S. Glenwick (Eds.), Handbook of methodological approaches to community-based research: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (pp. 253–262). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lewin, G. (Ed.). (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics by Kurt Lewin. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Lucero, J., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Alegria, M., Greene-Moton, E., Israel, B., … & Schulz, A. (2018). Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community-based participatory research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 55–74.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). All you need to know about action research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Nastasi, B., & Hitchcock, J. (2016). Mixed methods research and culture-specific interventions: Program development and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Olson, B. D., & Jason, L. A. (2015). Participatory mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 393–405). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Phillips, L., & Scheffmann-Petersen, M. (2020). Minding the gap between the policy and practice of patient-centeredness: Cocreating a model for tensional dialogue in the “Active Patient Support” program. Qualitative Health Research, 30(9), 1419–1430.
Plano Clark, V., & Ivankova, N. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2017). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). Introduction. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 1–10). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Stringer, E. T., & Aragón, A. O. (2020). Action research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–8.
Tashakkori, A., Johnson, R. B., & Teddlie, C. (2021). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). (2012). National Priorities for Research and Research Agenda. Retrieved from: http://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-National-Priorities-and-Research-Agenda.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Ivankova, N.V., Wingo, N.P. (2021). Intersecting Mixed Methods and Community-Based Participatory Action Research to Promote Patient-Centeredness in Research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Social Inclusion. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48277-0_90-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48277-0_90-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48277-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48277-0
eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine