Table 1.

Examples of mixed‐methods research studies

Type of mixed‐methods study design	Example
Sequential exploratory	Fisher and colleagues designed a mixed‐methods study to explore the prescribing activities of hospital pharmacists.9 The study had a sequential exploratory design: first, in a qualitative phase, 27 people were interviewed individually or in a focus group and the data were analysed, with the results grouped into themes. Then, in the quantitative phase, a cross‐sectional survey (n = 274) was designed, using the themes resulting from the qualitative data analysis to create the items. Integration was achieved in the design, by having the second part of the study build upon the findings of the first part. The results in the study are reported contiguously: i.e. first the qualitative findings, then the quantitative findings
Sequential explanatory	Shahhosseini and Hamzehgardeshi studied nurses’ perceptions of common facilitators and barriers to participation in continuing education programmes.10 To do so, they also used a sequential approach, but they started with the quantitative phase, using questionnaires (n = 361). In the second, qualitative phase, they made use of interviews. They interviewed 25 nurses to ask them about their perceptions and analysed the interviews using content analysis. Integration in this study mainly took place at the level of interpretation and reporting: it is in the discussion that both analyses are combined. The data sets of both sub‐studies are connected, as the interviewees were sampled from the wider data set of the quantitative phase. It is unclear whether the findings from phase 1 were used to inform phase 2 (e.g. sampling, question construction). The results are also presented contiguously
Convergent	Rosenkranz and colleagues made use of a convergent design to understand (de)motivating factors for medical students to do research.11 The qualitative and quantitative part were undertaken in parallel, by a cross‐sectional survey (n = 579) and interviews (n = 23). The data sets were both analysed with the same theoretical framework (Self‐Determination Theory). Equal weight was given to both the qualitative and quantitative elements of the study. After analysis, integration took place in the development of a model, at the level of interpretation and reporting. The results are presented in a weaved manner, i.e. with themes illustrated by both sets of data. By using one theoretical framework, the authors made a strong joint display of findings to achieve integration
Nested	Grocke and colleagues wanted to know whether people with severe mental illness could benefit from music therapy.12 To do so, they undertook a randomised controlled trial, with a cross‐over design. The intervention was singing songs, composing and recording songs, and they measured the effect on quality of life via questionnaires. The quantitative study was the main focus, yet two qualitative elements were nested, or embedded, in the study. Focus group interviews were undertaken after the intervention and song lyrics of self‐composed songs were analysed. Qualitative themes were embedded within the quantitative outcomes to provide a better understanding of the intervention than either approach alone. There was a clear connection between the sub‐studies, as they dealt with the same study population. The integration took place mainly in the interpretation and reporting phase, as both data sets were analysed separately. The results are presented in a contiguous way