Objetivo: descrever a experiência da integração entre dados quantitativos e qualitativos, por meio de uma pesquisa de métodos mistos. Método: trata-se de um relato de experiência da utilização dessa abordagem metodológica em um estudo de tese de doutorado em enfermagem sobre a governança da prática profissional de enfermagem no ambiente hospitalar. Resultados: o texto apresenta três tópicos principais: fundamentação teórica sobre as características e tipologias dos estudos de métodos mistos; procedimentos de coleta, análise e combinação dos dados; e benefícios e desafios da realização desse tipo de estudo. Conclusão: sustenta-se que a realização de uma pesquisa de métodos mistos permitiu a identificação de convergências e divergências entre os dados qualitativos e quantitativos, contribuindo para a produção de resultados que se complementam entre si.

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

Este trabalho resume um debate metodológico em processo na Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Brasil, sobre as duas formas de abordagem mais correntes nas investigações da área de saúde: o método quantitativo e o método qualitativo. Os autores - uma antropóloga sanitarista e um bioestatístico - demonstram, com argumentações teóricas e práticas, que esses métodos são de natureza diferenciada, mas se complementam na compreensão da realidade social. Num mundo onde o que distingue o ser humano é a linguagem comunicativa, o acento deste debate recai sobre a possibilidade, o significado e os limites da linguagem matemática e da linguagem de uso comum na experiência cotidiana.

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.

Objectives: It has been argued that mixed methods research can be useful in nursing and health science because of the complexity of the phenomena studied. However, the integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches continues to be one of much debate and there is a need for a rigorous framework for designing and interpreting mixed methods research. This paper explores the analytical approaches (i.e. parallel, concurrent or sequential) used in mixed methods studies within healthcare and exemplifies the use of triangulation as a methodological metaphor for drawing inferences from qualitative and quantitative findings originating from such analyses. Design: This review of the literature used systematic principles in searching CINAHL, Medline and PsycINFO for healthcare research studies which employed a mixed methods approach and were published in the English language between January 1999 and September 2009. Results: In total, 168 studies were included in the results. Most studies originated in the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada. The analytic approach most widely used was parallel data analysis. A number of studies used sequential data analysis; far fewer studies employed concurrent data analysis. Very few of these studies clearly articulated the purpose for using a mixed methods design. The use of the methodological metaphor of triangulation on convergent, complementary, and divergent results from mixed methods studies is exemplified and an example of developing theory from such data is provided. Conclusion: A trend for conducting parallel data analysis on quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods healthcare research has been identified in the studies included in this review. Using triangulation as a methodological metaphor can facilitate the integration of qualitative and quantitative findings, help researchers to clarify their theoretical propositions and the basis of their results. This can offer a better understanding of the links between theory and empirical findings, challenge theoretical assumptions and develop new theory.

Research is undertaken to answer important questions yet often the question is poorly expressed and lacks information on the population, the exposure or intervention, the comparison, and the outcome. An optimal research question sets out what the investigator wants to know, not what the investigator might do, nor what the results of the study might ultimately contribute. Objective: The purpose of this paper is to estimate the extent to which rehabilitation scientists optimally define their research questions. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of the rehabilitation research articles published during 2008. Two raters independently rated each question according to pre-specified criteria; a third rater adjudicated all discrepant ratings. Results: The proportion of the 258 articles with a question formulated as methods or expected contribution and not as what knowledge was being sought was 65%; 30% of questions required reworking. The designs which most often had poorly formulated research questions were randomized trials, cross-sectional and measurement studies. Conclusion: Formulating the research question is not purely a semantic concern. When the question is poorly formulated, the design, analysis, sample size calculations, and presentation of results may not be optimal. The gap between research and clinical practice could be bridged by a clear, complete, and informative research question.

A new form of literature review has emerged, Mixed Studies Review (MSR). These reviews include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. In the present paper, we examine MSRs in health sciences, and provide guidance on processes that should be included and reported. However, there are no valid and usable criteria for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality of the qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. Objective: To propose criteria for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies or study components. Design: A three-step critical review was conducted. Data sources: 2322 references were identified in MEDLINE, and their titles and abstracts were screened; 149 potentially relevant references were selected and the full-text papers were examined; 59 MSRs were retained and scrutinized using a deductive–inductive qualitative thematic data analysis. This revealed three types of MSR: convenience, reproducible, and systematic. Review methods: Guided by a proposal, we conducted a qualitative thematic data analysis of the quality appraisal procedures used in the 17 systematic MSRs (SMSRs). Results: Of 17 SMSRs, 12 showed clear quality appraisal procedures with explicit criteria but no SMSR used valid checklists to concomitantly appraise qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. In two SMSRs, criteria were developed following a specific procedure. Checklists usually contained more criteria than needed. In four SMSRs, a reliability assessment was described or mentioned. While criteria for quality appraisal were usually based on descriptors that require specific methodological expertise (e.g., appropriateness), no SMSR described the fit between reviewers’ expertise and appraised studies. Quality appraisal usually resulted in studies being ranked by methodological quality.

Neste ensaio busca-se aprofundar a reflexão sobre o processo de análise na pesquisa qualitativa a partir de autores referenciais e da experiência da própria autora. O texto está organizado em forma de decálogo por meio do qual é tratado o tema processualmente. A hipótese é de que uma análise para ser fidedigna precisa conter os termos estruturantes da investigação qualitativa que são os verbos: compreender e interpretar; e os substantivos: experiência, vivência, senso comum e ação social. A seguir a proposta avança por 10 passos que se iniciam na construção científica do objeto pela sua colocação no âmbito do conhecimento nacional e internacional, na elaboração de instrumentos que tornem concretos os conceitos teóricos, na execução de um trabalho de campo que envolva empaticamente o investigador no uso de vários tipos de técnicas e abordagens, tornando-o um construtor de relações, de observações e de uma narrativa em perspectiva. Por fim, a autora trata da análise propriamente dita, mostrando como o objeto, que já vem pensado em todas as etapas anteriores, deve se tornar um construto de segunda ordem, em que predomine a lógica dos atores em sua diversidade e não apenas as suas falas, dentro de uma narrativa teorizada, contextualizada, concisa e clara.

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.