School of Public Health and Social Work / Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4159, Australia.
School of Social Science, University of the Sunshine Coast, Room D1.32, Locked Bag 4, Maroochydore DC, QLD, 4558, Australia.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Dec 12;18(1):167. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0636-1.
BACKGROUND: Workplace health interventions incorporating qualitative and quantitative components (mixed methods) within a Participatory Action Research approach can increase understanding of contextual issues ensuring realistic interventions which influence health behaviour. Mixed methods research teams, however, face a variety of challenges at the methodological and expertise levels when designing actions and interventions. Addressing these challenges can improve the team's functionality and lead to higher quality health outcomes. In this paper we reflect on the data collection, implementation and data analysis phases of a mixed methods workplace health promotion project and discuss the challenges which arose within our multidisciplinary team. METHODS: This project used mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach to address workers' sun safety behaviours in 14 outdoor workplaces in Queensland, Australia, and elucidate why certain measures succeeded (or failed) at the worker and management level. The project integrated qualitative methods such as policy analysis and interviews, with a range of quantitative methods - including worker surveys, ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure measurement, and implementation cost analyses. RESULTS: The research team found the integration of qualitative and quantitative analyses within the Participatory Action Research process to be challenging and a cause of tensions. This had a negative impact on the data analysis process and reporting of results, and the complexity of qualitative analysis was not truly understood by the quantitative team. Once all researchers recognised qualitative and quantitative data would be equally beneficial to the Participatory Action Research process, methodological bias was overcome to a degree to which the team could work cooperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach may allow a research team to discuss, reflect and learn from each other, resulting in broadened perspectives beyond the scope of any single research methodology. However, cohesive and supportive teams take constant work and adjustment under this approach, as knowledge and understanding is gained and shared. It is important researchers are cognisant of, and learn from, potential tensions within research teams due to juxtaposed philosophies, methodologies and experiences, if the team is to function efficiently and positive outcomes are to be achieved.
背景:在参与式行动研究方法中融入定性和定量内容的工作场所健康干预措施(混合方法)可以提高对背景问题的理解,确保干预措施符合实际并影响健康行为。然而,混合方法研究团队在设计行动和干预措施时,在方法和专业知识层面上会面临各种挑战。解决这些挑战可以提高团队的功能,并带来更高质量的健康结果。在本文中,我们反思了一个混合方法工作场所健康促进项目的数据收集、实施和数据分析阶段,并讨论了我们多学科团队中出现的挑战。
方法:该项目在参与式行动研究方法中使用混合方法来解决澳大利亚昆士兰州 14 个户外工作场所工人的太阳安全行为问题,并阐明了为什么某些措施在工人和管理层层面取得了成功(或失败)。该项目整合了定性方法,如政策分析和访谈,以及一系列定量方法-包括工人调查、紫外线(UVR)暴露测量和实施成本分析。
结果:研究团队发现,在参与式行动研究过程中整合定性和定量分析具有挑战性,也是产生紧张局势的原因。这对数据分析过程和结果报告产生了负面影响,并且定量团队并没有真正理解定性分析的复杂性。一旦所有研究人员都认识到定性和定量数据对参与式行动研究过程都将是有益的,方法上的偏见就会在一定程度上得到克服,团队可以合作。
结论:在参与式行动研究方法中使用混合方法可以使研究团队相互讨论、反思和学习,从而拓宽任何单一研究方法的范围之外的视角。然而,在这种方法下,紧密合作的团队需要不断地努力和调整,因为知识和理解是在团队中共享的。重要的是,研究人员要意识到并从研究团队中由于相互冲突的理念、方法和经验而产生的潜在紧张关系中吸取教训,如果团队要高效运作并取得积极成果的话。
Rural Remote Health. 2016
J Occup Health. 2013-11-22
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016-4
J Med Internet Res. 2018-11-1
BMJ Ment Health. 2025-2-27
Infect Dis Poverty. 2020-1-13
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017
Br J Health Psychol. 2015-2
J Occup Health. 2013-11-22
Health Serv Res. 2013-10-21
JRSM Short Rep. 2013-5-7
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009-12-9