Use of concurrent mixed methods combining concept mapping and focus groups to adapt a health equity tool in Canada

• Published in: Evaluation and program planning Vol. 61; pp. 169 - 177
• Main Authors: Guichard, Anne, Tardieu, Émilie, Dagenais, Christian, Nour, Kareen, Lafontaine, Ginette, Ridde, Valéry
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.04.2017; Elsevier Science Ltd
• Subjects: Canada; Cluster Analysis; Concept mapping; Conditions; Cooperative Behavior; Decision Making; Equity; Focus Groups; Group Processes; Health behavior; Health care; Health care industry; Health disparities; Health equity; Health Status Disparities; Humans; Incorporation; Mapping; Medical research; Methodology; Mixed methods; Program Development; Program Evaluation - methods; Public health; Public Health Administration; Public health practices; Research Design; Research methodology; Canada; Concept mapping; Public health practices; Health equity; Focus groups; Methodology; Mixed methods
• ISSN: 0149-7189; 1873-7870
• DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.01.003

•The combined use of CM and focus group provide more operational ideas to support change from intervention and planning settings.•Focus groups enhance the concept mapping experience for participants who may be frustrated by the methodological constraints.•This design is appropriate for investigating targets with multiple levels of complexity. The aim of this project was to identify and prioritize a set of conditions to be considered for incorporating a health equity tool into public health practice. Concept mapping and focus groups were implemented as complementary methods to investigate the conditions of use of a health equity tool by public health organizations in Quebec. Using a hybrid integrated research design is a richer way to address the complexity of questions emerging from intervention and planning settings. This approach provides a deeper, operational, and contextualized understanding of research results involving different professional and organizational cultures, and thereby supports the decision-making process. Concept mapping served to identify and prioritize in a limited timeframe the conditions to be considered for incorporation into a health equity tool into public health practices. Focus groups then provided a more refined understanding of the barriers, issues, and facilitating factors surrounding the tools adoption, helped distinguish among participants’ perspectives based on functional roles and organizational contexts, and clarified some apparently contradictory results from the concept map. The combined use of these two techniques brought the strengths of each approach to bear, thereby overcoming some of the respective limitations of concept mapping and focus groups. This design is appropriate for investigating targets with multiple levels of complexity.