2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2020.05.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mixed-Methods-Studien in der Gesundheitsförderung. Ergebnisse eines systematischen Reviews deutschsprachiger Publikationen

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It enables a broad picture of possible barriers and facilitators for participation in physical-activity measures at the workplace. As previous research indicates, a broad repertory of methods has proven to be an appropriate and expedient approach, especially within the context of complex interventions [ 54 , 76 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It enables a broad picture of possible barriers and facilitators for participation in physical-activity measures at the workplace. As previous research indicates, a broad repertory of methods has proven to be an appropriate and expedient approach, especially within the context of complex interventions [ 54 , 76 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It also allows for evidence-based approaches to practice and offsets the weaknesses of the individual methods. [18][19][20] Phase 1…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The meta-synthesis allowed to relate the prevention and treatment strategies with the individual, cultural and socioeconomic determinants, as well as establish some paths and mechanisms that produce MiP. This was made possible by the combination of the advantages of the qualitative (deep understanding of the meanings, attitudes, behaviors, interactions, and social processes of daily life) and quantitative (measure and relate variables, establish trends, make predictions, explanatory models and generalizations with a large number of participants) approaches [18][19][20][21][22].…”
Section: Populations Methodological Quality and Mail Topics Of System...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Qualitative evidence has helped to identify MiP determinants, but its results cannot be generalized; on the other hand, the quantitative evidence, despite being predominant in MiP and having advantages such as large sample sizes, trend analysis and result generalization, it does not delve into the contextual determinants (socioeconomic, or cultural). These limitations show the need to systematize the evidence generated with mixed studies (multimethods) to allow the integration and discussion of quantitative and qualitative findings, transcend dualistic visions of reality, overcome the limitations to unite the strengths of each method, perform meta-inferences, broaden the understanding of the study problem, propose better solution alternatives [18,19], improve the evaluation of practices, interventions or programs of health, and articulate objective, subjective and intersubjective evidence [20][21][22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%