In general, more detailed description of data collection and analysis, integration, inferences and justifying the use of mixed methods is needed.Additionally, improved reporting of methodological rigour is required.data collection, analysis, interpretation and/or discussion) [ 10 ].One way to capture possible variations in the timing and integration of methods is the ‘mixed methods designs’ proposed by Creswell and Plano Clark [ 9 ] (i.e.Although several definitions for mixed methods exist, this review was informed by the six characteristics of mixed methods research described by Creswell and Plano Clark [ 9 ] (see Box 1 ).Mixed methods research provides a platform to combine the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to offset their respective weaknesses.Although schools provide an ideal environment for prevention, school and community characteristics shape these interventions [ 6–8 ].Hence, this methodological review uses the empirical example of school-based obesity interventions to examine how mixed methods have been used and how rigour has been addressed in this area of population health research.
Twenty-three peer-reviewed mixed methods studies were identified through a systematic search of five databases and appraised using the guidelines for Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study.
The fundamental indicator of mixed methods research, distinguishing it from research that simply uses both quantitative and qualitative methods, is integration.
‘Integration’ is the purposeful mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods, which can occur at different phases of the research process (i.e.
This review calls for increased discussion of practical techniques for establishing rigour in mixed methods research, beyond those for quantitative and qualitative criteria individually.
A guide for reporting mixed methods research in population health should be developed to improve the reporting quality of mixed methods studies.