Qual and Quant Data Integration in Mixed Methods Research (MMR) and Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Hello Qualitative Mind,
As some of you might already know, my last PhD study entailed a small MMR project where we first collected quantitative data to investigate the prevalence of food insecurity among immigrant women accessing a community-based organization, and then followed with qualitative interviews exploring the experiences of 17 Somali women who were coping with food insecurity. Because the quantitative and qualitative phases were both quite contained, and the qualitative data detailed important quantitative results, it was easy for us (myself and my co-authors) to report the findings in one paper. This certainly facilitated the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings, which is a key feature of MMR.
My experience as a consultant has shown me that the integration of qualitative and quantitative data isn’t always that simple. I’ve supported the qualitative phase of a few MMR studies, and often the question of integration comes up at some point during the study or reporting. When the quantitative phase of the study entails multiple data collection points and instruments, it becomes almost impossible to report quantitative and qualitative results altogether. In this case, we need to be extra careful not to turn a MMR into a multi-method study sans integration.
Recently I was confronted with this challenge in the context of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). I’m responsible for conducting qualitative interviews that are embedded into a RCT, and the preliminary results of over 35 interviews are incredibly rich and diverse. I wasn’t sure how to best showcase the results without diluting the experiences of individual participants [I’m fully aware this is a BIG concern for most qualitative researchers when writing their thesis, reports and papers], and that’s when I found a paper that gave me some very neat ideas through their examples.
The paper Integrating quantitative and qualitative data and findings when undertaking randomised controlled trials was published in 2019 reporting a 2-day expert meeting funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Hubs for Trials Methodology Research. Their goal was to identify current strengths and weaknesses in the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in clinical trials, and to provide some examples where integration was done in rather novel ways that have the potential of strengthening integration.
One of the examples they included came from a pilot RCT where the qualitative findings were grouped and presented according to the primary outcomes examined in the study, i.e., the experiences of participants who had positive vs. negative results with intervention A vs. B (and then the same with intervention B vs. A). I know it seems messy but with a clearly laid out table, it was easy to understand the quantitative outcomes and how the qualitative results were synthesized.
I found this paper helpful and informative, and it gave me some ideas I’ll be able to implement when reporting the qualitative results embedded into the RCT. I’m super proud and excited about the qualitative findings and the last thing I want is to lose the diverse perceptions on the topic and range of experiences. If you’re involved in MMR or RCTs and looking for more ideas on how to report qualitative findings, you’ll want to read this 2019 paper and learn with me.
Talk soon,
Maira