Applying mixed methods to pilot feasibility studies to inform intervention trials

被引:71
作者
Aschbrenner, Kelly A. [1 ]
Kruse, Gina [2 ]
Gallo, Joseph J. [3 ]
Clark, Vicki L. Plano [4 ]
机构
[1] Dartmouth Coll, Psychiat, Geisel Sch Med, Hanover, NH 03755 USA
[2] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Div Gen Internal Med, Boston, MA USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Mental Hlth, Baltimore, MD USA
[4] Univ Cincinnati, Sch Educ Res Methods, Cincinnati, OH USA
关键词
Mixed methods; Pilot studies; Intervention; Feasibility studies; Integration; Quantitative and qualitative; Methodological guidance; DESIGN; INTEGRATION; PRINCIPLES; FRAMEWORK; IMPROVE;
D O I
10.1186/s40814-022-01178-x
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background: Pilot feasibility studies serve a uniquely important role in preparing for larger scale intervention trials by examining the feasibility and acceptability of interventions and the methods used to test them. Mixed methods (collecting, analyzing, and integrating quantitative and qualitative data and results) can optimize what can be learned from pilot feasibility studies to prepare rigorous intervention trials. Despite increasing use of mixed method designs in intervention trials, there is limited guidance on how to apply these approaches to address pilot feasibility study goals. The purpose of this article is to offer methodological guidance for how investigators can plan to integrate quantitative and qualitative methods within pilot feasibility studies to comprehensively address key research questions. Methods: We used an informal consensus-based process informed by key methodological resources and our team's complementary expertise as intervention researchers and mixed methodologists to develop guidance for applying mixed methods to optimize what can be learned from pilot feasibility studies. We developed this methodological guidance as faculty in the Mixed Methods Research Training Program (MMRTP) for the Health Sciences (R25MH104660) funded by the National Institutes of Health through the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research. Results: We provide the following guidance for applying mixed methods to optimize pilot feasibility studies: (1) identify feasibility domain(s) that will be examined using mixed methods, (2) align quantitative and qualitative data sources for the domain(s) selected for mixing methods, (3) determine the timing of the quantitative and qualitative data collection within the flow of the pilot study, (4) plan integrative analyses using joint displays to understand feasibility, and (5) prepare to draw meta-inferences about feasibility and implications for the future trial from the integrated data. Conclusions: By effectively integrating quantitative and qualitative data within pilot feasibility studies, investigators can harness the potential of mixed methods for developing comprehensive and nuanced understandings about feasibility. Our guidance can help researchers to consider the range of key decisions needed during intervention pilot feasibility testing to achieve a rigorous mixed methods approach generating enhanced insights to inform future intervention trials.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]   More pilot trials could plan to use qualitative data: a meta-epidemiological study [J].
Baldeh, Tejan ;
MacDonald, Tonya ;
Kosa, Sarah Daisy ;
Lawson, Daeria O. ;
Stalteri, Rosa ;
Olaiya, Oluwatobi R. ;
Alotaibi, Ahlam ;
Thabane, Lehana ;
Mbuagbaw, Lawrence .
PILOT AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES, 2020, 6 (01)
[2]   Qualitative Exploration of Barriers to Statin Adherence and Lipid Control A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial [J].
Barankay, Iwan ;
Reese, Peter P. ;
Putt, Mary E. ;
Russell, Louise B. ;
Phillips, Caitlin ;
Pagnotti, David ;
Chadha, Sakshum ;
Oyekanmi, Kehinde O. ;
Yan, Jiali ;
Zhu, Jingsan ;
Volpp, Kevin G. ;
Clapp, Justin T. .
JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2021, 4 (05) :E219211
[3]  
Bazeley P., 2018, Integrating Analyses in Mixed Methods Research, P3, DOI DOI 10.4135/9781526417190
[4]   Guidance for using pilot studies to inform the design of intervention trials with continuous outcomes [J].
Bell, Melanie L. ;
Whitehead, Amy L. ;
Julious, Steven A. .
CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 10 :153-157
[5]   Role of feasibility and pilot studies in randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional study [J].
Blatch-Jones, Amanda Jane ;
Pek, Wei ;
Kirkpatrick, Emma ;
Ashton-Key, Martin .
BMJ OPEN, 2018, 8 (09)
[6]   Methodological Challenges of Mixed Methods Intervention Evaluations [J].
Boeije, Hennie R. ;
Drabble, Sarah J. ;
O'Cathain, Alicia .
METHODOLOGY-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH METHODS FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2015, 11 (04) :119-125
[7]   How We Design Feasibility Studies [J].
Bowen, Deborah J. ;
Kreuter, Matthew ;
Spring, Bonnie ;
Cofta-Woerpel, Ludmila ;
Linnan, Laura ;
Weiner, Diane ;
Bakken, Suzanne ;
Kaplan, Cecilia Patrick ;
Squiers, Linda ;
Fabrizio, Cecilia ;
Fernandez, Maria .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2009, 36 (05) :452-457
[8]  
Bryman A., 2006, Qualitative Research, V6, P97, DOI [10.1177/1468794106058877, https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877, DOI 10.1177/1468794106058877]
[9]   Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health [J].
Campbell, M ;
Fitzpatrick, R ;
Haines, A ;
Kinmonth, AL ;
Sandercock, P ;
Spiegelhalter, D ;
Tyrer, P .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 321 (7262) :694-696
[10]   Quality of reporting of pilot and feasibility cluster randomised trials: a systematic review [J].
Chan, Claire L. ;
Leyrat, Clemence ;
Eldridge, Sandra M. .
BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (11)