Implementation challenges to patient safety in Guatemala: a mixed methods evaluation

Grand rounds in methodology: designing for integration in mixed methods research

Mixed methods research is a popular approach used to understand persistent and complex problems related to quality and safety, such as reasons why interventions are not implemented as intended or explaining differential outcomes. However, the quality and rigour of mixed methods research proposals and publications often miss opportunities for integration, which is the core of mixed methods. Achieving integration remains challenging, and failing to integrate reduces the benefits of a mixed methods approach. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to guide quality and safety researchers in planning and designing a mixed methods study that facilitates integration. We highlight how meaningful integration in mixed methods research can be achieved by centring integration at the following levels: research question, design, methods, results and reporting and interpretation levels. A holistic view of integration through all these levels will enable researchers to provide better answers to complex problems and thereby contribute to improvement of safety and quality of care.

Attitudes Toward and Usage of Evidence-Based Mental Health Practices for Autistic Youth in Bangladesh and Germany: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

The implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for autistic youth is a critical concern worldwide. Research examining factors facilitating the implementation of EBPs found that providers' attitudes are an important factor. In this study, we evaluated cross-cultural differences in attitudes toward and use of EBPs. We tested socio-demographic factors as predictors of attitudes, and attitudes as predictors of EBPs use among mental health professionals working with autistic youth in Bangladesh and Germany. We used purposeful sampling. Two-hundred-ninety-two professionals who worked in a clinical setting responded to the survey and fulfilled the inclusion criteria (101 in Bangladesh, 191 in Germany). Participants were asked to respond to nine subscales of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale-36 (EBPAS-36), to indicate which of nine types of treatments they used, and to provide sociodemographic data. Measurement invariance across countries could be established for four subscales of the EBPAS-36. Comparative analyses of attitudes showed that professionals in both countries were open to using EBPs, but German practitioners were more likely to use EBPs when they appealed to them. By contrast, Bangladeshi professionals claimed to be more likely to adopt an EBP when required and to be more willing to learn EBPs to enhance job security. The relationship between caseload and attitudes varied between countries. A broader variety of EBPs was used in Germany. The findings highlight the importance of considering country-specific factors when implementing EBPs. Directions for conducting comparative studies on mental health professionals' attitudes towards EBP including methodological considerations are discussed.