Cited by 133Health Policy Implementation SciencePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic Care

Using mixed methods to develop and evaluate complex interventions in palliative care research

Farquhar, Morag C, Ewing, Gail, Booth, Sara·2011·Palliative Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1177/0269216311417919

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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