This paper describes the application of mixed method designs in implementation research in 22 mental health services research studies published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 5 years. Our analyses revealed 7 different structural arrangements of qualitative and quantitative methods, 5 different functions of mixed methods, and 3 different ways of linking quantitative and qualitative data together. Complexity of design was associated with number of aims or objectives, study context, and phase of implementation examined. The findings provide suggestions for the use of mixed method designs in implementation research.

The wide variety of dissemination and implementation designs now being used to evaluate and improve health systems and outcomes warrants review of the scope, features, and limitations of these designs. This article is one product of a design workgroup that was formed in 2013 by the National Institutes of Health to address dissemination and implementation research, and whose members represented diverse methodologic backgrounds, content focus areas, and health sectors. These experts integrated their collective knowledge on dissemination and implementation designs with searches of published evaluations strategies. This article emphasizes randomized and nonrandomized designs for the traditional translational research continuum or pipeline, which builds on existing efficacy and effectiveness trials to examine how one or more evidence-based clinical/prevention interventions are adopted, scaled up, and sustained in community or service delivery systems. We also mention other designs, including hybrid designs that combine effectiveness and implementation research, quality improvement designs for local knowledge, and designs that use simulation modeling.

Adaptations are often made to evidence-based practices (EBPs) by systems, organizations, and/or service providers in the implementation process. The degree to which core elements of an EBP can be maintained while allowing for local adaptation is unclear. In addition, adaptations may also be needed at the system, policy, or organizational levels to facilitate EBP implementation and sustainment. This paper describes a study of the feasibility and acceptability of an implementation approach, the Dynamic Adaptation Process (DAP), designed to allow for EBP adaptation and system and organizational adaptations in a planned and considered, rather than ad hoc, way. The DAP involves identifying core elements and adaptable characteristics of an EBP, then supporting implementation with specific training on allowable adaptations to the model, fidelity monitoring and support, and identifying the need for and solutions to system and organizational adaptations. In addition, this study addresses a secondary concern, that of improving EBP model fidelity assessment and feedback in real-world settings. This project examines the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of the DAP; tests the degree to which fidelity can be maintained using the DAP compared to implementation as usual (IAU); and examines the feasibility of using automated phone or internet-enabled, computer-based technology to assess intervention fidelity and client satisfaction. The study design incorporates mixed methods in order to describe processes and factors associated with variations in both how the DAP itself is implemented and how the DAP impacts fidelity, drift, and adaptation. The DAP model is to be examined by assigning six regions in California (USA) to either the DAP (n = 3) or IAU (n = 3) to implement an EBP to prevent child neglect. The DAP represents a data-informed, collaborative, multiple stakeholder approach to maintain intervention fidelity during the implementation of EBPs in the field by providing support for intervention, system, and organizational adaptation and intervention fidelity to meet local needs. This study is designed to address the real-world implications of EBP implementation in public sector service systems and is relevant for national, state, and local service systems and organizations.

Mixed methods research—i.e., research that draws on both qualitative and quantitative methods in varying configurations—is well suited to address the increasing complexity of public health problems and their solutions. This review focuses specifically on innovations in mixed methods evaluations of intervention, program or policy (i.e., practice) effectiveness, and implementation. The article begins with an overview of the structure, function, and process of different mixed methods designs and then provides illustrations of their use in effectiveness studies, implementation studies, and combined effectiveness–implementation hybrid studies. The article then examines four specific innovations: procedures for transforming (or “quantitizing”) qualitative data, application of rapid assessment and analysis procedures in the context of mixed methods studies, development of measures to assess implementation outcomes, and strategies for conducting both random and purposive sampling, particularly in implementation-focused evaluation research. The article concludes with an assessment of challenges to integrating qualitative and quantitative data in evaluation research.