From rigour and trustworthiness validating mixed methods are anya garnis and pasha dating
convergent parallel, explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential, embedded, multiphase, and transformative).
The interpretations made from the individual quantitative and qualitative strands are ‘inferences’, whereas the conclusions made from both strands together are ‘meta-inferences’ [ 9 ].
According to Albright [ 1 ], mixed methods provide the benefit of including quantitative methods to examine the intervention content (the ‘what’) and qualitative methods to explore the context (the ‘why’ and ‘how’) [ 1 ].
However, to determine the strength of evidence derived from mixed methods studies, we must also evaluate the methodological rigour of such work.
Pluye and Hong [ 14 ] highlight the value of mixed methods in public health research: mix[ed] methods combines the power of stories and the power of numbers.
813), noting inconsistencies in (i) the terms used, (ii) the concepts that should be evaluated, (iii) whether quantitative and qualitative methods should be assessed separately and (iv) whether final conclusions based on both method types should be evaluated.Although there is ongoing discussion regarding which worldview(s) mixed methods research corresponds with, pragmatism is one of the most frequently adopted [ 9 , 11 , 12 ].The pragmatic worldview aligns with population health research given its emphasis on problem solving, practice and interest in individual–environment interactions [ 13 ].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.