In stage 2, the questionnaire was piloted to determine its validity and reliability. Finally, the questionnaire was sent to a random sample of community pharmacists to test the generalizability of the findings of the focus group interviews. The design (sequential) and the rationale for choosing mixed-methods approach were clearly described. The use of the mixed-methods approach provided a rich and generalizable

description of pharmacist prescribing in Canada by overcoming the limitations of qualitative (generalizability) and quantitative (in-depth understanding) methodology. Complementarity seeks elaboration, enhancement, illustration and clarification of the AZD9291 nmr results from one method with the results from the other method.’[1] Bruhn et al. reported a pilot randomized controlled trial which was complemented with qualitative interviews to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led management of chronic pain in primary care (the PIPPC study).[6, 7] The patients were randomized to

one of three arms: (1) pharmacist find more medication review with pharmacist prescribing, (2) pharmacist medication review with feedback to GP and (3) treatment as usual. The qualitative component consisted of face-to-face interviews with the pharmacists, GPs and patients to explore their experiences. It is noteworthy that the qualitative interviews did not contribute towards answering the effectiveness question (the primary aim of the study); rather, they helped to understand and explain how the intervention might have worked. The two datasets were described separately in two different conference proceedings and were therefore not integrated. Integration of the

two datasets may have allowed researchers to draw more meaningful inferences from the findings and authors may do so in a full report. However, if the purpose of a mixed-methods study is to answer different research questions within the same study (embedded design), as in this example, the authors may choose to present findings separately.[8] Again, neither the rationale nor the design was reported. Initiation seeks the discovery of the paradox and contradiction, new perspectives of frameworks, the recasting of questions or Roflumilast results from one method with questions or results from the other method.’ It generates ideas by initiating new interpretations, highlighting areas for additional investigation and reshaping the entire research question. Initiation is predominantly used in the disciplines of social sciences and psychology. We were unable to find an example in the area of pharmacy practice to illustrate initiation. It should be noted that in these examples we have tied each example to only one reason or rationale for choosing a mixed-methods design, which in practice is not always true, as researchers might use a mixed-methods approach for more than one reason.