The purposes of this article are to position mixed methods research (mixed research is a synonym) as the natural complement to traditional qualitative and quantitative research, to present pragmatism as offering an attractive philosophical partner for mixed methods research, and to provide a framework for designing and conducting mixed methods research. In doing this, we briefly review the paradigm “wars” and incompatibility thesis, we show some commonalities between quantitative and qualitative research, we explain the tenets of pragmatism, we explain the fundamental principle of mixed research and how to apply it, we provide specific sets of designs for the two major types of mixed methods research (mixed-model designs and mixed-method designs), and, finally, we explain mixed methods research as following (recursively) an eight-step process. A key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently results in superior research (compared to monomethod research). Mixed methods research will be successful as more investigators study and help advance its concepts and as they regularly practice it.

The purpose of this article is to examine how the field of mixed methods currently is being defined. The authors asked many of the current leaders in mixed methods research how they define mixed methods research. The authors provide the leaders’ definitions and discuss the content found as they searched for the criteria of demarcation. The authors provide a current answer to the question, What is mixed methods research? They also briefly summarize the recent history of mixed methods and list several issues that need additional work as the field continues to advance. They argue that mixed methods research is one of the three major “research paradigms” (quantitative research, qualitative research, and mixed methods research). The authors hope this article will contribute to the ongoing dialogue about how mixed methods research is defined and conceptualized by its practitioners

Um importante desafio para os sistemas de saúde é promover o uso sistemático do conhecimento em políticas públicas que busquem, ao mesmo tempo, melhorar a eficiência e as condições de saúde da população. O objetivo deste artigo foi identificar e discutir estratégias para estimular o uso de evidências científicas no processo de tomada de decisão em políticas de saúde. A busca de evidências científicas foi realizada nos repositórios da Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde, Health Systems Evidence e PubMed. A ferramenta SUPPORT (Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials) foi usada na construção desse panorama. Sete revisões sistemáticas apontaram quatro principais estratégias para estimular o uso de evidências na tomada de decisão: 1) produzir e disseminar sínteses de evidência com linguagem adaptada a diferentes públicos; 2) estimular o uso do jornalismo e de outras formas de comunicação para ampliar a disseminação do conhecimento científico; 3) utilizar plataforma virtual on-line para disseminação do conhecimento científico; 4) promover a interação entre pesquisadores e tomadores de decisão. Estratégias para estimular o uso de evidências científicas na tomada de decisão em saúde podem ser desenvolvidas de maneira sinérgica, mas é necessário considerar o contexto local e as implicações das estratégias para o sistema de saúde como um todo.