[Mixed Methods Studies in Health Services Research: Requirements, Challenges and the Question of Integration - a Discussion Paper from the Perspective of Qualitative Researchers]. / Mixed Methods-Studien in der Versorgungsforschung: Anforderungen, Herausforderungen und die Frage der Integration ­ ein Diskussionspapier aus der Perspektive qualitativ Forschender.

With this discussion paper, the subgroup Mixed Methods of the working group Qualitative Research Methods in the non-profit organization German Network Health Services Research (DNVF) is taking up the topic of three previous discussion papers on the significance and potentials of qualitative research methods in health services research. Mixed methods are being increasingly used and demanded in health services research. However, there are also areas of conflict in the planning and implementation of mixed methods studies, and these are addressed in this paper from the perspective of qualitative research. Special attention is given to the aspect of integration as the fundamental signature of mixed methods research. With this discussion paper, our aim was to stimulate critical as well as constructive exchange of ideas on what constitutes high-quality health services research characterised by a diversity of methods and the framework conditions under which this can succeed.

Survey participation among general practitioners: comparison between teaching physicians and a random sample.

OBJECTIVE: Health scientists strive for a smooth recruitment of physicians for research projects like surveys. Teaching physicians are an easy to approach population that is already affiliated with a university by teaching students in their practice. How do response rates compare between a convenient online survey among teaching physicians and an elaborate postal survey in a random sample of unknown physicians? Data from the TMI-GP study on the use of memory tests in general practice were used. RESULTS: Physicians in the random sample responded to the postal survey more often than teaching physicians to the online survey (59.5% vs. 18.9%; odds ratio 7.06; 95% confidence interval 4.81-10.37; p < 0.001). Although it is unclear whether the sample, the survey mode (online vs. postal) or both account for this effect, it is noteworthy that even in such a convenience sample of known/committed physicians, an adequate response rate could not be reached without a tailored and elaborated survey technique. Responders in the two samples were comparable regarding a content-related item (use of memory tests; Χ2 (df = 1) = 3.07; p = 0.080).