Mixed methods research is important to health services research because the integrated qualitative and quantitative investigation can give a more comprehensive understanding of complex interventions such as telehealth than can a single-method study. Further, mixed methods research is applicable to translational research and program evaluation. Study designs relevant to telehealth research are described and supported by examples. Quality assessment tools, frameworks to assist in the reporting and review of mixed methods research, and related methodologies are also discussed.
CreswellJW. A concise introduction to mixed methods research, Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2015, pp. 132–132.
2.
O’CathainAMurphyENichollJ. Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res2007; 7: 85–85.
3.
ChangLWKagaayiJAremHet al.Impact of a mHealth intervention for peer health workers on AIDS care in rural Uganda: a mixed methods evaluation of a cluster-randomized trial. Aids Behav2011; 15: 1776–1784.
4.
MorrowMNguyenQACaruanaSet al.Pathways to malaria persistence in remote central Vietnam: a mixed-method study of health care and the community. BMC Public Health2009; 9: 85–85.
5.
BlusiMDalinRJongM. The benefits of e-health support for older family caregivers in rural areas. J Telemed Telecare2014; 20: 63–69.
6.
FettersMD. “Haven’t We Always Been Doing Mixed Methods Research?”: lessons learned from the development of the horseless carriage. J Mix Method Res2016; 10: 3–11.
7.
BrewerJHunterA. Multimethod research: a synthesis of styles, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1989.
8.
TashakkoriACreswellJW. The new era of mixed methods. J Mix Method Res2007; 1: 3–7.
9.
Plano ClarkVLBadieeMResearch questions in mixed methods research. In: TashakkoriATeddlieC (eds). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2010, pp. 275–304.
10.
TashakkoriACreswellJ. Editorial: exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. J Mix Method Res2007; 1: 207–211.
11.
Fatehi F, Smith AC, Maeder A, et al. How to formulate research questions and design studies for telehealth assessment and evaluation. J Telemed Telecare 2016; 23(9): 759–763.
12.
CartwrightMHiraniSPRixonLet al.Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ2013; 346: f653–f653.
13.
SteventonABardsleyMBillingsJet al.Effect of telecare on use of health and social care services: findings from the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Age Ageing2013; 42: 501–508.
14.
HendyJChrysanthakiTBarlowJet al.An organisational analysis of the implementation of telecare and telehealth: the whole systems demonstrator. BMC Health Serv Res2012; 12: 403–403.
15.
BardsleyMSteventonADollH. Impact of telehealth on general practice contacts: findings from the whole systems demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMC Health Serv Res2013; 13: 395–395.
16.
MayC. A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care. BMC Health Serv Res2006; 6: 86–86.
17.
FinchT. Teledermatology for chronic disease management: coherence and normalization. Chronic Illn2008; 4: 127–134.
18.
WyeLLasseterGSimmondsBet al.Electronic palliative care coordinating systems (EPaCCS) may not facilitate home deaths: a mixed methods evaluation of end of life care in two English counties. J Res Nurs2016; 21: 96–107.
19.
VelentgasPDreyerNWuAOutcome definition and measurement. In: VelentgasPDreyerNNourjahPet al. (eds). Developing a protocol for observational comparative effectiveness research: a user’s guide, Government Printing Office, 2013.
20.
HindricksGTaborskyMGliksonMet al.Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2014; 384: 583–590.
21.
SalisburyCThomasCO’CathainAet al.Telehealth in chronic disease: mixed-methods study to develop the TECH conceptual model for intervention design and evaluation. BMJ Open2015; 5: e006448–e006448.
22.
LarizzaMZukermanIBohnertFet al.In-home monitoring of older adults with vision impairment: exploring patients’, caregivers’ and professionals’ views. J Am Med Inform Assoc2014; 21: 56–63.
23.
StarrM. Qualitative and mixed-methods research in economics: surprising growth, promising future. J Econ Surv2014; 28: 238–264.
24.
BrymanA. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?Qual Res2006; 6(1): 97–113.
O’CathainAMurphyENichollJ. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ2010; 341: c4587–c4587.
27.
HsiehHFShannonSE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res2005; 15: 1277–1288.
28.
SandersCRogersABowenRet al.Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res2012; 12: 220–220.
29.
O’CathainAMurphyENichollJ. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy2008; 13: 92–98.
30.
PaceRPluyePBartlettGet al.Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud2012; 49: 47–53.
31.
SaleJEBrazilK. A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Qual Quant2004; 38: 351–365.
32.
ZhangWQCreswellJ. the use of “mixing” procedure of mixed methods in health services research. Medical Care2013; 51: e51–7.
33.
OnwuegbuzieAJTeddlieCFramework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In: TashakkoriATeddlieC (eds). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2003, pp. 351–383.
34.
BowersBCohenLWElliotAEet al.Creating and supporting a mixed methods health services research team. Health Serv Res2013; 48: 2157–2180.
35.
YinRK. Case study research design and methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2013.
36.
SinghRMathiassenLStachuraMEet al.Sustainable rural telehealth innovation: a public health case study. Health Serv Res2010; 45: 985–1004.
37.
GreenhalghTHinderSStramerKet al.Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace. BMJ2010; 341: c5814–c5814.
