Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
EditorialEditorial

Mixed Methods: Capturing Complexity in Family Medicine Research

Simon J. Craddock Lee
The Annals of Family Medicine March 2021, 19 (2) 98-99; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2682
Simon J. Craddock Lee
Roles: Associate Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: simoncraddock.lee@utsouthwestern.edu
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
Key words
  • mixed methods
  • primary care research
  • complexity

In 2004, Borkan advocated for qualitative and mixed methods as important research strategies to address key challenges facing family medicine as a scientific discipline.1 These study designs help researchers capture the complexity inherent to the practice of family medicine with clarity and rigor. More recently, experts advocated for the use of qualitative and mixed methods to untangle the causal pathways in health disparities research.2 Qualitative data can corroborate and expand on quantitative research results, but only if data collection is carefully designed to capture the complexity. One design strategy is to develop a vision of how quantitative and qualitative results would ideally be jointly displayed and then work backward to design data collection strategies to get there.3

In this issue, a mixed methods analysis led by Solberg et al4 sought to unpack in a sequential design how leaders at high- and low-performing clinics in Minnesota thought they were managing diabetes. Their data displays stratified high and low clinics by quantitative performance metrics (Solberg, Table 1) and by qualitative code and comment frequency (Solberg, Table 2). They adjusted for socioeconomic status before stratifying clinic performance to select their interview targets from among clinical leaders. That adjusted sample frame meant authors could be confident when the qualitative analysis detected no relationship between clinic performance and patient mix. Initially, all the care strategies reported in interviews seemed to hang together, however, although the number of comment/clinic reflecting proactive approaches did not differ, as quotes show, the content was dramatically different by clinic performance. These differences led authors to distinguish between a traditional visit-based model “with individual patient responsibility for attendance and adherence” and a proactive model where the clinic teams used panel reports to drive systematic outreach (mail, e-mail, telephone) while also taking “advantage of visits for any reason to reinforce those suggestions….” The paper’s analytic meta-framework shows no single step from one-on-one doctor-patient relationship but more of an evolution that leveraged “reminder systems, checklists, data audit and feedback, and patient education” to drive proactive clinic behaviors. John Frey has warned that continuity cannot simply be systems managing the disease without the patient.5 These multisite data help us see a way forward for care monitoring systems to empower the broader clinic team and reinvigorate patient engagement.

Wolk et al6 describes a staged implementation of the Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) to integrate mental health treatments in primary care, following the RE-AIM framework (ie, reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance). The first year saw over 6,000 patients referred, nearly 7% of empaneled patients! Penn Integrated Care featured a centralized mental health resource center for intake, triage, and referral if indicated. Authors noted, “effectiveness often declines when programs move from efficacy trials to real world implementation” but in this study, length and frequency of treatment suggest high fidelity for CoCM services; rates of enrollment, symptom reduction, and remission are consistent with results from randomized controlled trials. From a service perspective, the multilevel triage met patient demand while allowing mental health clinicians to focus on treatment delivery.

Mixed-method results can help bridge the gap for decision makers seeking to disseminate programs.7 Fortin et al8 report on a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of an integrated care management pathway to change how multimorbidity care is delivered. When the regional health authority adapted the intervention for regional dissemination, it altered the intervention design increasing the pragmatic dimension of the trial. At 4 months, the intervention did not improve the primary outcome of self-management, but did improve secondary outcomes including physical activity and healthy eating. The concurrent triangulation mixed-method design, with quantitative and qualitative components, produced divergent results demonstrating that implementation may influence intervention effects on patient outcomes. Mixed methods also mean researchers have more results from various sources to help elucidate unexpected findings.

Fortunately, primary care scholars are generating new family medicine practice-based evidence across the implementation and dissemination research continuum.9 Research on practice change draws explicitly on theory and measurement. Implementation science uses learning health systems and other real-world “collaboratories”10 to “bake-in” external validity from the beginning.11 As the theme of “living laboratories” at the 2020 PBRN meeting suggested,12 the interface of implementation science and health care delivery research has continued to draw significant attention in primary care. We hope this attention persists and encourage it among our readership.

Annals of Family Medicine will champion research methods that reflect complexity of primary care practice, particularly the persistent challenge of adopting and disseminating evidence-based guidelines and interventions. Our editorial team invites our readers and authors to advance the field by reading and submitting such work.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: author reports none.

  • To read or post commentaries in response to this article, go to https://www.AnnFamMed.org/content/19/2/98/tab-e-letters.

  • Received for publication February 12, 2021.
  • Accepted for publication February 15, 2021.
  • © 2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Borkan JM
    . Mixed methods studies: a foundation for primary care research. Ann Fam Med. 2004; 2(1): 4-6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Jeffries N,
    2. Zaslavsky AM,
    3. Diez Roux AV, et al.
    Methodological approaches to understanding causes of health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2019; 109(S1): S28-S33.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Guetterman TC,
    2. Fetters MD,
    3. Creswell JW
    . Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Ann Fam Med. 2015; 13(6): 554-561.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Solberg LI,
    2. Peterson KA,
    3. Fu H,
    4. Eder M,
    5. Jacobsen R,
    6. Carlin CS
    . Strategies and factors associated with top performance in primary care for diabetes: insights from a mixed methods study. Ann Fam Med. 2021; 19(2): 110-116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Frey JJ III.
    . Colluding with the decline of continuity. Ann Fam Med. 2018; 16(6): 488-489.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Wolk CB,
    2. Last BS,
    3. Livesey C, et al.
    Addressing common challenges in the implementation of collaborative care for mental health: the Penn Integrated Care program. Ann Fam Med. 2021; 19(2): 148-156.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Miller WL,
    2. Crabtree BF,
    3. Harrison MI,
    4. Fennell ML
    . Integrating mixed methods in health services and delivery system research. Health Serv Res. 2013; 48(6 Pt 2)(6pt2): 2125-2133.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Stewart M,
    3. Ngangue P, et al.
    Scaling up patient-centered interdisciplinary care for multimorbidity: a pragmatic mixed-methods randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2021; 19(2):128-134.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Miller WL,
    2. Rubinstein EB,
    3. Howard J,
    4. Crabtree BF
    . Shifting implementation science theory to empower primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2019; 17(3): 250-256.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Weinfurt KP,
    2. Hernandez AF,
    3. Coronado GD, et al.
    Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017; 17(1): 144.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Green LW
    . Making research relevant: if it is an evidence-based practice, where’s the practice-based evidence? Fam Pract. 2008; 25(Suppl 1): i20-i24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Nease D Jr.,
    2. Greiver M
    . 2020 PBRN conference highlights: living laboratories for innovation and dissemination/implementation in our communities. Ann Fam Med. 2020; 18(6): 569-570.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 19 (2)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 19 (2)
Vol. 19, Issue 2
March/April 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mixed Methods: Capturing Complexity in Family Medicine Research
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
20 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Mixed Methods: Capturing Complexity in Family Medicine Research
Simon J. Craddock Lee
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2021, 19 (2) 98-99; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2682

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Mixed Methods: Capturing Complexity in Family Medicine Research
Simon J. Craddock Lee
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2021, 19 (2) 98-99; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2682
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Obstacles and Opportunities on the Path to Improving Health Professions Education and Practice: Lessons From HRSA’s Academic Units for Primary Care Training and Enhancement
  • COVID-19 and Primary Care: Taking Stock
  • A Follow-Up to “The Family Tree Spreads its Limbs: National Academy of Medicine Family Physician New Members 2021”
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Mixed methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health services

Keywords

  • mixed methods
  • primary care research
  • complexity

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine