The purposes of this methods article are to (a) discuss how integration can occur through a connecting approach in explanatory sequential mixed methods studies, (b) describe a connecting strategy developed for a study testing a conceptual model to predict lung cancer screening, and (c) describe three analytic products developed by subsequent integration procedures enabled by the connecting strategy. Connecting occurs when numeric data from a quantitative strand of a study are used to select a sample to be interviewed for a subsequent qualitative strand. Because researchers often do not fully exploit numeric data for this purpose, we developed a multi-step systematic sampling strategy that produced an interview sample of eight subgroups of five persons (n = 40) whose profiles converged with or diverged from the conceptual model in specified ways. The subgroups facilitated the development of tailored interview guides, in-depth narrative summaries, and exemplar case studies to expand the quantitative findings.
AberleD. R.AdamsA. M.BergC. D.Black.W. C.ClappJ. D.FagerstromR. M.GareenI. F.GatsonisC.MarcusP. M.SicksJ. D. (2011). Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. The New England Journal of Medicine, 365(5), 395–409. https://doi.10.1056/NEJMoa1102873
BaheiraeiA.MirghafourvandM.CharandabiS. M.-A.MohammadiE.NedjatS. (2014). Health-promoting behaviors and social support in Iranian women of reproductive age: A sequential explanatory mixed methods study. International Journal of Public Health, 59(3), 465–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-013-0513-y
4.
BazeleyP. (2018). Integrating analysis in mixed methods research. Sage.
5.
BronkK. C.KingP. E.MatsubaK. (2013). An introduction to exemplar research. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2013(142), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20045
6.
Carter-HarrisL.ComerR. S.GoyalA.VodeE. C.HannaN.CeppaD.RawlS. M. (2017). Development and usability testing of a computer-tailored decision support tool for lung cancer screening: Study protocol. JMIR Research Protocols, 6(11), e225. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.8694
7.
Carter-HarrisL.SlavenJ. E.2ndMonahanP. O.DrauckerC. B.VodeE.RawlS. M. (2019). Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis. Journal of Medical Screening. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141319876961
8.
Carter-HarrisL.TanA. S. L.SalloumR. G.Young-WolffK. C. (2016). Patient-provider discussions about lung cancer screening pre- and post-guidelines: Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Patient Education and Counseling, 99(11), 1772–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.05.014
9.
CataldoJ. K.SlaughterR.JahanT. M.PongquanV. L.HwangW. J. (2011). Measuring stigma in people with lung cancer: Psychometric testing of the Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale. Oncology Nursing Forum, 38(1), E46–E54. https://doi.10.1188/11.ONF.E46-E54
10.
ChampionV. L.SkinnerC. S.MenonU.RawlS.GieslerR. B.MonahanP.DaggyJ. (2004). A breast cancer fear scale: Psychometric development. Journal of Health Psychology, 9(6), 753–762. http://doi.10.1177/1359105304045383
11.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research design. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Sage.
12.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
13.
DrauckerC. B.RawlS. M.VodeE.Carter-HarrisL. (2019). Understanding the decision to screen for lung cancer or not: A qualitative analysis. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 22(6), 1314–1321. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12975
14.
DuganE.TrachtenbergF.HallM. A. (2005). Development of abbreviated measures to assess patient trust in a physician, a health insurer, and the medical profession. BMC Health Services Research, 5, 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-5-64
15.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6, Pt 2), 2134–2156. https://doi.10.1111/1475-6773.12117
16.
FettersM. D.FreshwaterD. (2015). The 1 + 1 = 3 integration challenge. Journal of MM Research, 9(2), 115–117. https://doi.10.1177/1558689815581222
17.
FreemanM.BaumannA.Akhtar-DaneshN.BlytheJ.FisherA. (2012). Employment goals, expectations, and migration intentions of nursing graduates in a Canadian border city: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(12), 1531–1543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.07.015
18.
GuettermanT. C.FettersM. D.CreswellJ. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561. https://doi.10.1370/afm.1865
19.
HayJ. L.BuckleyT. R.OstroffJ. S. (2005). The role of cancer worry in cancer screening: A theoretical and empirical review of the literature. Psycho-Oncology, 14(7), 517–534. http://doi.10.1002/pon.864
20.
HowellsS. R.CornwellP. L.WardE. C.KuipersP. (2019a). Dysphagia care for adults in the community setting commands a different approach: Perspectives of speech-language therapists. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 54(6), 971–981. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12499
21.
HowellsS. R.CornwellP. L.WardE. C.KuipersP. (2019b). Understanding dysphagia care in the community setting. Dysphagia, 34(5), 681–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-018-09971-8
22.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.10.1177/1525822X05282260
23.
JessupR. L.OsborneR. H.BuchbinderR.BeauchampA. (2018). Using co-design to develop interventions to address health literacy needs in a hospitalised population. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 989. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3801-7
24.
KatzD. A.StewartK.PaezM.HolmanJ.AdamsS. L.Vander WegM. W.BattagliaC. T.JosephA. M.TitlerM. G.OnoS. (2016). “Let me get you a nicotine patch”: Nurses’ perceptions of implementing smoking cessation guidelines for hospitalized veterans. Military Medicine, 181(4), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00101
25.
LevittH. M.BambergM.CreswellJ. W.FrostD. M.JosselsonR.Suárez-OrozcoC. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and MM research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/amp0000151
26.
MayoR. M.UredaJ. R.ParkerV. G. (2001). Importance of fatalism in understanding mammography screening in rural elderly women. Journal of Women & Aging, 13(1), 57–72.
27.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. MSaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
28.
National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences. (2018). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences (2nd ed.). National Institutes of Health.
