Using mixed methods to develop and evaluate complex interventions in palliative care research
Abstract
Background: there is increasing interest in combining qualitative and quantitative research methods to provide comprehensiveness and greater knowledge yield. Mixed methods are valuable in the development and evaluation of complex interventions. They are therefore particularly valuable in palliative care research where the majority of interventions are complex, and the identification of outcomes particularly challenging. Aims: this paper aims to introduce the role of mixed methods in the development and evaluation of complex interventions in palliative care, and how they may be used in palliative care research. Content: the paper defines mixed methods and outlines why and how mixed methods are used to develop and evaluate complex interventions, with a pragmatic focus on design and data collection issues and data analysis. Useful texts are signposted and illustrative examples provided of mixed method studies in palliative care, including a detailed worked example of the development and evaluation of a complex intervention in palliative care for breathlessness. Key challenges to conducting mixed methods in palliative care research are identified in relation to data collection, data integration in analysis, costs and dissemination and how these might be addressed. Conclusions: the development and evaluation of complex interventions in palliative care benefit from the application of mixed methods. Mixed methods enable better understanding of whether and how an intervention works (or does not work) and inform the design of subsequent studies. However, they can be challenging: mixed method studies in palliative care will benefit from working with agreed protocols, multidisciplinary teams and engaging staff with appropriate skill sets.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Fourteen included studies explored the acceptability and/or feasibility of the intervention to different stakeholders, including providers, recipients or policy makers and service commissioners.
“Fourteen studies explored the acceptability and/or feasibility of the intervention to different stakeholders, including providers, recipients or policy makers and service commissioners [27, 29–32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 48].”
From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [34]
Optimisation strategies applying qualitative methods tended to explore acceptability and feasibility issues.
“Optimisation strategies applying qualitative methods tended to explore acceptability and feasibility issues [26, 30, 32, 34, 39, 47, 48].”
From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [34]
The majority of included studies (n = 16) subsequently refined the intervention to then test the optimised version within pilot studies or full-scale RCTs.
“The majority of studies (n = 16) subsequently refined the intervention to then test the optimised version of the intervention within pilot studies or full-scale RCTs [24–32, 34, 38–40, 43, 47, 48].”
From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [34]
Several included studies employed well-established qualitative methods including interviews or focus groups with providers and recipients or relevant stakeholders, and observations and consensus processes including researchers, patients and clinical experts.
“Several studies employed well-established qualitative methods including interviews or focus groups with providers and recipients or relevant stakeholders [26, 30, 32, 34, 39, 47, 48] and observations and consensus processes including researchers, patients and clinical experts [31].”
From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [34]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 133
- Authors
- Farquhar, M. C., Ewing, G., & Booth, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Venue
- Palliative Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-08-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 748-757
- ISSN
- 0269-2163 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-030X
- OpenAlex
- W2101350206
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 13.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Palliative Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Cambridge
- Cambridge University Hospitals
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Keywords
- mixed methods, complex interventions, palliative care research, intervention development, intervention evaluation, dyspnea, data integration, research design, multidisciplinary team, research dissemination
- MeSH terms
- Data Collection, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Palliative Care, Research Design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review