Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 27, 2026
The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score (PRIUS): A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Methodological reporting in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods health services research articles
Jennifer P Wisdom1, Mary A Cavaleri, Anthony J Onwuegbuzie
1Psychiatry Department, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032, USA. jpw2129@columbia.edu
Objectives:
Methodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles.
Data Sources:
All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals.
Study Design:
All mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e.g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component.
Principal Findings:
Mixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (χ(2) (1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (χ(2) (1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively).
Conclusion:
Few published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.
Related Concept Videos
01:24Data Reporting and Recording
01:20Introduction to Documentation and Reporting
Nursing documentation records essential information and details regarding a patient's care and treatment in written or electronic form. It is a critical aspect of nursing practice that involves documenting assessments, interventions, outcomes, and other relevant details about a patient's health status.
Documentation maps the patient's health journey by creating a comprehensive and precise...
01:25Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data
01:21Types of Reports II: Incident or Occurrence Report
Purposes:
In the healthcare industry, reports play a crucial role in documenting incidents within an agency. The primary objective of these reports is to ensure patient safety, uphold the...
01:26Types of Reports III: Telephone and Verbal Reports
Here's an overview of each type:
Telephone Orders
01:18The Scientific Method in Nursing Process
When using research findings to change practice, one must understand the process used to guide a study. The scientific method is a systematic, step-by-step process that supports the data's validity, reliability, and generalizability. As a result, findings can be safely...