Search

Background: Interest in mixed methods methodology within medical education research has seen a notable increase in the past two decades, yet its utilization remains less prominent compared to quantitative methods. This study aimed to investigate the application and integration of mixed methods methodology in medical education research, with a specific focus on researchers' perceptions, strategies, and readiness, including the necessary skills and expertise. This study adheres to the COREQ guidelines for reporting qualitative research. Methods: Faculty members from King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Saudi Arabia, across its three campuses in Riyadh, Jeddah, and Al Ahsa, participated in this study during the 2021–2022 academic year. We conducted 15 in-depth, one-on-one interviews with researchers who had previously used mixed methods in their medical education research. Theoretical saturation was reached with no refusals or dropouts. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide developed from literature review and mixed methods guidelines. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze the data, enabling a comprehensive understanding of the participants' perspectives. Results: The thematic analysis of the interviews yielded three key themes. The first theme, 'Understanding and Perceptions of Mixed Methods in Medical Education Research,' delved into researchers' depth of knowledge and conceptualization of mixed methods. The second theme, 'Strategies and Integration in Mixed Methods Implementation,' explored how these methodologies are applied and the challenges involved in their integration. The final theme, 'Mastery in Mixed Methods: Prerequisites and Expert Consultation in Research,' highlighted the gaps in readiness and expertise among researchers, emphasizing the importance of expert guidance in this field. Conclusion: Findings indicate a varied understanding of mixed methods among participants. Some lacked a comprehensive grasp of its application, while others perceived mixed methods primarily as a means to enhance the publication prospects of their studies. There was a general lack of recognition of mixed methods as a guiding methodology for all study aspects, pointing to the need for more in-depth training and resources in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]