Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 9, 2026
Problem-Solving Before Instruction (PS-I): A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities
Published on: September 11, 2021
The use of mixed methodology in evaluating complex interventions: identifying patient factors that moderate the
Joanne Protheroe1, Peter Bower, Carolyn Chew-Graham
1National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. j.protheroe@manchester.ac.uk
Background:
Mixed method research, the combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods, is increasingly popular in health services research, especially as a way to examine 'complex interventions'. This paper seeks to provide a case example of the use of mixed methods in the analysis of a complex intervention (a computerized interactive decision aid) to test whether their use affords insights into potential moderators of the intervention (i.e. patient factors that were associated with the impact of the intervention).
Methods:
We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (n=149) of a decision aid in women attending their primary care practitioners with menorrhagia. Alongside the trial, a qualitative study was conducted with interviews with a sample of women who had received the intervention (n=18). Hypotheses generated by the qualitative study were used to inform subsequent quantitative subgroup analyses.
Results:
The results from both studies showed that the decision aid was broadly beneficial. The qualitative study found that women with less formal education reported greater levels of benefit from the intervention. However, quantitative analyses of formal education as a moderator of treatment effect found that the intervention provided the greatest benefit in women with greater formal education. The findings of the qualitative and quantitative studies thus demonstrated a significant inter-method discrepancy. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.
Conclusions:
Mixed methods can illuminate different aspects of an intervention or provide greater insight into particular issues. Health service researchers need to be aware that the qualitative and quantitative results may be discrepant, and methods need to be developed to deal with such discrepancies. However, exploring seemingly discrepant results can lead to greater insight and the development of new hypotheses and avenues of research.
Related Concept Videos
01:25Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
01:29Nursing Interventions II: Selecting and Classifying the Nursing Interventions
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
02:07Blind Procedures
01:15Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic illness...
02:01Factorial Design