Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Heidelberg University, INF 130.3, Sixth floor, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Environmental Health Department, The Polytechnic, University of Malawi, Private Bag 303, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi.
Health Policy Plan. 2020 Feb 1;35(1):102-106. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz126.
The application of mixed methods in Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) has expanded remarkably. Nevertheless, a recent review has highlighted how many mixed methods studies do not conceptualize the quantitative and the qualitative component as part of a single research effort, failing to make use of integrated approaches to data collection and analysis. More specifically, current mixed methods studies rarely rely on emergent designs as a specific feature of this methodological approach. In our work, we postulate that explicitly acknowledging the emergent nature of mixed methods research by building on a continuous exchange between quantitative and qualitative strains of data collection and analysis leads to a richer and more informative application in the field of HPSR. We illustrate our point by reflecting on our own experience conducting the mixed methods impact evaluation of a complex health system intervention in Malawi, the Results Based Financing for Maternal and Newborn Health Initiative. We describe how in the light of a contradiction between the initial set of quantitative and qualitative findings, we modified our design multiple times to include additional sources of quantitative and qualitative data and analytical approaches. To find an answer to the initial riddle, we made use of household survey data, routine health facility data, and multiple rounds of interviews with both healthcare workers and service users. We highlight what contextual factors made it possible for us to maintain the high level of methodological flexibility that ultimately allowed us to solve the riddle. This process of constant reiteration between quantitative and qualitative data allowed us to provide policymakers with a more credible and comprehensive picture of what dynamics the intervention had triggered and with what effects, in a way that we would have never been able to do had we kept faithful to our original mixed methods design.
混合方法在卫生政策和体系研究(HPSR)中的应用已经显著扩展。然而,最近的一项评论强调了许多混合方法研究并没有将定量和定性部分概念化为单一研究工作的一部分,未能利用综合方法进行数据收集和分析。更具体地说,当前的混合方法研究很少依赖于新兴设计作为这种方法方法的一个特定特征。在我们的工作中,我们假设通过在定量和定性数据收集和分析的连续交流基础上明确承认混合方法研究的新兴性质,将导致在 HPSR 领域更丰富和更具信息性的应用。我们通过反思我们自己在马拉维进行的一项复杂卫生系统干预措施的混合方法影响评估——基于成果的母婴健康融资倡议的经验来阐明我们的观点。我们描述了在最初的定量和定性发现之间存在矛盾的情况下,我们如何多次修改设计,以纳入额外的定量和定性数据来源和分析方法。为了找到最初的谜团的答案,我们利用了家庭调查数据、常规卫生设施数据以及对医疗保健工作者和服务使用者进行的多轮访谈。我们强调了哪些背景因素使我们能够保持高水平的方法灵活性,最终使我们能够解决这个谜团。这种定量数据和定性数据之间的反复迭代过程使我们能够向政策制定者提供更可信和全面的画面,了解干预措施引发了哪些动态以及产生了哪些影响,而如果我们坚持最初的混合方法设计,我们将永远无法做到这一点。