Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

The Journal of Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 0.768

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.321
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.485
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.618

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1458-6126
See all formats and pricing

 


Select Volume and Issue

Applying mixed methods in evaluation of a community prevention project: reflections on strengths and challenges

Ingeborg Rossow1 / Bergljot Baklien1

Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research, POB 565 Sentrum N-0105 Oslo, Norway1

This content is open access.

Citation Information: Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Volume 28, Issue 5-6, Pages 487–500, ISSN (Online) 1458-6126, ISSN (Print) 1455-0725, DOI: 10.2478/v10199-011-0043-y, December 2011

Publication History

Published Online:
2011-12-21

Applying mixed methods in evaluation of a community prevention project: reflections on strengths and challenges

AIMS - In this study we report on experiences with applying mixed methods in an evaluation study and present reflections on strengths and challenges in this respect. What was done in order to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods? What were the main benefits? What kinds of difficulties were encountered. METHODS - The study is a case report based on the researchers' own experiences from applying qualitative process evaluation and quantitative effect evaluation in a comprehensive evaluation of a complex community prevention project. RESULTS - Findings from qualitative methods were used to initiate further effect evaluation (sequential integration) and to support and explain findings from the effect evaluation (simultaneous integration). The main benefits were a more nuanced and comprehensive evaluation integrated into a common evaluation report. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods presented a number of challenges, particularly in integrating the analyses and writing a common report, due to significant differences in research traditions. CONCLUSION - The use of mixed methods in this evaluation study was very useful and necessary, particularly to explain the findings and to provide information for future prevention projects. However, essential differences between process evaluation and effect evaluation presented challenges.

Keywords: mixed methods; evaluation research; community prevention

  • Abma, T. A. & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2008): Evaluation and/as social relation. Evaluation 14: 209-225

  • Andreasson, S. & Sjöström, E. & Bränström, R. (2007): A six-community prevention trial to reduce alcohol and drug use-related problems in Sweden: planning and early findings. Substance Use & Misuse 42: 2017-2027 [Web of Science]

  • Babor, T. & Caetano, R. & Casswell, S. & Edwards, G. & Giesbrecht, N. & Graham, K. et al. (2010): Alcohol: No ordinary commodity. Research and public policy. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press [Web of Science]

  • Baklien, B. & Pape, H. & Rossow, I. & Storvoll, E. E. (2007): Regionprosjektet - nyttig forebygging? Evalueringen av et pilotprosjekt om lokalbasert rusforebygging. SIRUS rapport nr. 6/2007 (The regional project - useful prevention? Evaluation of a pilot project on community based alcohol and drug prevention SIRUS report no. 6/2007). Oslo: Statens institutt for rusmiddelforskning

  • Buvik, K. V. & Baklien, B. (2006): Skal det være noe mer før vi stenger? Evaluering av Ansvarlig vertskap i Trondheim (Anything else before we close? An evalution of responsible beverage service in Trondheim). Oslo: Statens institutt for rusmiddelforskning

  • Campbell, M. & Fitzpatrick, R. & Haines, A. & Kinmonth, A. L. & Sandercock, P. & Spiegelhalter, D. & Tyrer, P. (2000): Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal 321: 694-696 [Web of Science]

  • Gray, D. & Saggers, S. & Sputore, B. & Bourbon, D. (2000): What works? A review of evaluated alcohol misuse interventions among Aboriginal Australians. Addiction 95: 11-22

  • Holder, H. D. (2000): Community prevention of alcohol problems. Addictive Behaviors 25: 843-859

  • Holder, H. D. (2002): Prevention of alcohol and drug "abuse" problems at the community level: what research tells us. Substance Use & Misuse 37: 901-921

  • Holmila, M. & Karlsson, T. & Warpenius, K. (2010): Controlling teenagers' drinking: Effects of a community-based prevention project. Journal of Substance Use 15: 201-214

  • Homel, R. & Hauritz, M. A. & Wortley, R. K. & McIlwain, G. & Carvolth, R. (1997): Preventing Alcohol-related Crime Through Community Action: The Surfers Paradise Safety Action Project. In: Homel, R. (ed.): Policing for prevention: Reducing crime, public intoxication and injury (vol. 7). Pp 35-90. Money, New York: Criminal Justice Press

  • Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Turner, L. A. (2007): Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1: 112-133

  • Karlsson, L. (2008): Analys av arbetsprocesser i sex försökskommuner (Analysis of the working process in six test municipalities). Östersund: Statens folkhälsoinstitut.

  • Karachi, T. W. & Abbott, R. D. & Catalano, R. F. & Haggerty, K. P. & Fleming, C. B. (1999): Opening the black box: Using process evaluation measures to assess implementation and theory building. American Journal of Community Psychology 27: 711-731

  • Lauritzen, H. C. & Baklien, B. (2007): Overskjenking i Bergen. En oppfølgingsevaluering av Ansvarlig vertskap (Overserving in Bergen. A follow-up evaluation of responsible beverage service). Oslo: Statens institutt for rusmiddelforskning

  • Morse, J. M. (2003): Principles of mixed methods and mulitmethod research design. In: Tasshakori, A. & Teddle, C. (eds.): Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. pp 189-210. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications

  • Oakley, A. & Strange, V. & Bonell, C. & Allen, E. & Stephenson, J. & RIPPLE Study Team (2006): Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. British Medical Journal 332: 413-416

  • Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1997): Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications

  • Rossow, I. & Baklien, B. (2010): Effectiveness of responsible beverage service: the Norwegian experiences. Contemporary Drug Problems 37: 91-107

  • Stafström, M. (2007): Preventing Adolescent Alcohol Use: Processes and Outcomes of a Community-Based Intervention in Trelleborg. Malmö: Department of Health Sciences, Division of Social Medicine and Global Health

  • Strange, V. & Allen, E. & Oakley, A. & Bonell, C. & Johnson, A. & Stephenson, J. (2006): Integrating Process with Outcome Data in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Sex Education. Evaluation 12: 330-352

  • Wagenaar, A. C. & Gehan, J. P. & Jones-Webb, R. & Toomey, T. L. & Forster, J. L. & Wolfson, M. (1999): Communities mobilizing for change on alcohol: Lessons and results from a 15-community randomized trial. Journal of Community Psychology 27: 315-326

  • Weber, M. D. & Graham, J. W. & Hansen, W. B. & Flay, B. R. & Johnson, C. A. (1989): Evidence for two paths of alcohol use onset in adolescents. Addictive Behaviors 14: 399-408 [PubMed] [Crossref]

  • Williams, C. L. & Perry, C. L. & Farbakhsh, K. & Veblen-Mortenson, S. (1999): Project Northland: Comprehensive alcohol use prevention for young adolescents, their parents, schools, peers and communities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement 13: 112-124.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Ingeborg Rossow and Thor Norström
Addiction, 2013, Volume 108, Number 1, Page 20

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.