IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/qrampp/v8y2011i1p72-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying mixed methods research in evaluating clinical trials

Author

Listed:
  • Lyn Murphy
  • William Maguire

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report on the decision process that the authors follow in applying mixed methods research to evaluate the benefits and costs of conducting sponsored clinical trials in a publicly funded New Zealand hospital. Design/methodology/approach - A simultaneous parallel mixed method design was adopted. This design builds on a health outcomes study that involves a retrospective cohort study of changes in participants' health status and mortality rates. Although a team of medical researchers conducted that study (i.e. the current authors were not involved), it is one of the three strands of the current research as it forms the platform for the other two strands, namely the multiple stakeholder perception strand and the economic outcomes strand. In the multiple stakeholder perceptions strand, qualitative methods were used to explore the benefits and costs perceived by stakeholders. In the economic outcomes strand, quantitative methods were used to estimate the benefits and costs of clinical trials. Findings - The economic outcomes strand and the multiple stakeholder perceptions strand are complementary. Each strand delivers dimensions to the analysis that are not apparent from the other. Originality/value - The value of the paper lies in improved understanding of the process of mixed method research through communicating choices and decisions made in response to the challenges faced.

Suggested Citation

  • Lyn Murphy & William Maguire, 2011. "Applying mixed methods research in evaluating clinical trials," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 8(1), pages 72-90, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:8:y:2011:i:1:p:72-90
    DOI: 10.1108/11766091111124711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/11766091111124711/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/11766091111124711/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/11766091111124711?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Campbell,Harry F. & Brown,Richard P. C., 2003. "Benefit-Cost Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521528986, October.
    2. Dolan, Paul, 2000. "The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care," Handbook of Health Economics, in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 32, pages 1723-1760, Elsevier.
    3. Preloran, H.M. & Browner, C.H. & Lieber, E., 2001. "Strategies for motivating Latino couples' participation in qualitative health research and their effects on sample construction," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(11), pages 1832-1841.
    4. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1995. "A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey," Working Papers 138chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Joanna Sale & Lynne Lohfeld & Kevin Brazil, 2002. "Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 43-53, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Anne M. Stiggelbout & Wilbert B. Van Den Hout, 2014. "Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Interviewer Help Answering the Time Tradeoff," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 655-665, July.
    2. Suzanne Robinson, 2011. "Test–retest reliability of health state valuation techniques: the time trade off and person trade off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1379-1391, November.
    3. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419.
    4. Tertius Greyling & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Protection of Malleefowl in the Lachlan Catchment," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1099, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    5. Haegeman, Karel & Marinelli, Elisabetta & Scapolo, Fabiana & Ricci, Andrea & Sokolov, Alexander, 2013. "Quantitative and qualitative approaches in Future-oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): From combination to integration?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 386-397.
    6. Petra C Gronholm & Oluwadamilola Onagbesan & Poonam Gardner-Sood, 2017. "Care coordinator views and experiences of physical health monitoring in clients with severe mental illness: A qualitative study," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 63(7), pages 580-588, November.
    7. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    8. David Mayston, "undated". "Developing a Framework Theory for Assessing the Benefits of Careers Guidance," Discussion Papers 02/08, Department of Economics, University of York.
    9. repec:hal:psewpa:halshs-00590524 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Rosalia Diaz‐Carrion & Macarena López‐Fernández & Pedro M. Romero‐Fernandez, 2020. "Sustainable human resource management and employee engagement: A holistic assessment instrument," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1749-1760, July.
    11. MerriKay Oleen-Burkey & Jane Castelli-Haley & Maureen Lage & Kenneth Johnson, 2012. "Burden of a Multiple Sclerosis Relapse," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 57-69, March.
    12. Eugenio De Gregorio & Ivana Tagliafico & Alfredo Verde, 2018. "A comparison of qualitatively and quantitatively driven analytic procedures of psychotherapeutic group sessions with deviant adolescents," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1731-1760, July.
    13. Markus König & Christian Pfarr & Peter Zweifel, 2014. "Mutual Altruism: Evidence from Alzheimer Patients and Their Spouse Caregivers," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 141-160, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    14. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.
    15. Stephen Buetow, 2014. "How Can a Family Resemblances Approach Help to Typify Qualitative Research? Exploring the Complexity of Simplicity," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, October.
    16. David G. T. Whitehurst & Stirling Bryan & Martyn Lewis, 2011. "Systematic Review and Empirical Comparison of Contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D Group Mean Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 34-44, November.
    17. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2008. "Opportunity analysis of newborn screening programs," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 12(4), pages 259-277, December.
    18. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    19. Fabrice Etilé & Carine Milcent, 2006. "Income‐related reporting heterogeneity in self‐assessed health: evidence from France," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(9), pages 965-981, September.
    20. R. McQueen & Samuel Ellis & David Maahs & Heather Anderson & Kavita Nair & Anne Libby & Jonathan Campbell, 2014. "Association Between Glycated Hemoglobin and Health Utility for Type 1 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 197-205, June.
    21. Petrie, Dennis & Doran, Chris & Shakeshaft, Anthony & Sanson-Fisher, Rob, 2008. "The relationship between alcohol consumption and self-reported health status using the EQ5D: Evidence from rural Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1717-1726, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:8:y:2011:i:1:p:72-90. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.