The Case for Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in Health Services Research
Abstract
A judicious combination of qualitative and quantitative methods can play a valuable role in health services research. This paper reviews the main reasons for combining methods: for different stages in a project; to compensate for the shortcomings of individual methods; and for the purpose of 'triangulation'. It examines the potential for qualitative approaches to contribute to quantitative work--by providing insights into the process of data construction, identifying relevant variables to be studied, furnishing explanations for unexpected or anomalous findings, and generating hypotheses or research questions for further investigation. Similarly, qualitative work can be enhanced by using quantitative techniques--albeit often in a modified form--in analysing data, developing sampling strategies, and amalgamating findings from separate qualitative studies. Although there is potential to develop multi-method approaches, there remains an important role for rigorous studies employing either qualitative or quantitative methods.
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?
Purposive sampling allows researchers to deliberately include "outliers" conventionally discounted in quantitative approaches.
“With purposive sampling, researchers deliberately seek to include “outliers” conventionally discounted in quantitative approaches.9”
From Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? (2001) · cites this paper as [9]
Purposive sampling allows deviant cases to illuminate, by juxtaposition, processes and relations that routinely come into play, enabling "the exception to prove the rule."
“It allows for such deviant cases to illuminate, by juxtaposition, those processes and relations that routinely come into play, thereby enabling “the exception to prove the rule.”9,10”
From Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? (2001) · cites this paper as [9]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Barbour, R. S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115 · Cited by 2,613 · see citing works
Self-citationLockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000062 · Cited by 2,456 · see citing works
Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies
O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c4587 · Cited by 1,584 · see citing works
Moffatt, S., White, M., Mackintosh, J., & Howel, D. (2006) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-28 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Using mixed methods to develop and evaluate complex interventions in palliative care research
Farquhar, M. C., Ewing, G., & Booth, S. (2011) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216311417919 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
The newfound credibility of qualitative research? tales of technical essentialism and co-option
Barbour, R. S. (2003) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732303253331 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Self-citationCritical reflections on the rise of qualitative research
Pope, C., & Mays, N. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b3425 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Factors associated with catastrophic health expenditure in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review
Eze, P., Lawani, L. O., Agu, U. J., Amara, L. U., Okorie, C. A., & Acharya, Y. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276266 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
- Authors
- Barbour, R. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Barbour, Rosaline S.
- Venue
- Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-43
- ISSN
- 1355-8196 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1060
- OpenAlex
- W2123091787
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 48.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Health Services Research & Policy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Keywords
- mixed methods, qualitative-quantitative integration, triangulation, dataset construction, hypothesis generation, sampling strategy
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, United Kingdom, Health Services Research, 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