Blending qualitative and quantitative study methods in health services research

Health Informatics Journal

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 15-22

  McDowell, I ^a   MacLean, L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0003390277     PISSN: 14604582     EISSN: 17412811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/146045829800400103     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Filstead W J. Qualitative methods: a needed perspective in evaluation research. In Cook T D, Reichardt C S (eds.) Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1979: 33-48.
2. Stange K C, Miller W L, Crabtree B F, O'Connor P J, Zyzanski S J. Multimethod research: approaches for integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. J Gen Intern Med 1994; 9:278-282.
3. Steckler A, McLeroy K R, Goodman R M, Bird S T, McCormick L. Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction. Health Educ Q 1992; 19:1-8.
4. Morse J M. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nurs Res 1991; 40:120-123.
5. Patton M Q. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1990.
6. Reichardt C S, Cook T D. Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In Cook T D, Reichardt C S (eds.) Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1979:7-32.
7. Rossi P H, Freeman H E. Evaluation: a systematic approach. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1993.
8. Miles M B, Huberman A M. Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1994.
9. Edwards N C, Cushman R, Hotz S, et al. Development and testing of a multifaceted intervention program to reduce the incidence of smoking relapse during pregnancy and postpartum of women and their partners. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Community Health Research Unit, Technical Report, October 1994.
10. Bellamy N, Buchanan W, Goldsmith C H, Stitt L. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15:1833-1840.
11. Ruta D A, Garratt A M, Leng M, Russell I T, MacDonald L M. A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: The Patient-Generated Index. Med Care 1994; 32:1109-1126.
12. MacLean L M, Dunkley G, Lindsay E, et al. Partnership success and evaluation: an analysis of the Heartbeat Partnership stories. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Community Health Research Unit, monograph M96-4, 1996.
13. Radloff L S. The CES-D scale; a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measurement 1977; 1:385-401.
14. Mahoney F I, Barthel D W. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J 1965; 14:611-665.
15. Lezak M D. Neuropsychological assessment. 3rd edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.