Focus group and survey research services gradually have emerged as the two most popular examples of qualitative and quantitative research. Choosing between surveys and focus groups can require seemingly little thought because typical applications, benefits and limitations of either are widely recognized by research suppliers and buyers.

Not so widely understood however is that superior results often can be achieved more cost-effectively by avoiding the tendency to pit quantitative against qualitative in a manner that assumes their mutual exclusivity and leads to a "choosing between them" approach.

Most decision-makers probably would not argue with the assertion that a combination of focus group and survey research can produce better results compared to using either approach separately. Strong arguments would likely come with a second assertion that a combined approach can be shown as being more cost-effective.

A final aspect of a combined approach, sure to be an issue for many, involves time constraints for conducting research. As we consider the possibility of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to produce research that generates better quality information that is more cost-effective, examples based on actual case histories may be helpful.

Deciding Which Benefits To Reduce…

Our client, a Medicare HMO, needed to reduce benefits but was uncertain as to which ones. Interestingly, a major competitor of the client had recently cut certain benefits after supposedly having done some research.

The results were disastrous and within a short time after making benefit reductions and experiencing substantial member disenrollments, the competitor was forced to rescind their changes.  Our client did not wish to make a similar error so we were asked to provide a proposal for survey research to accomplish the indicated need.

After some discussion, we prepared a research plan based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative research that we had previously found to be effective---a series of small group discussions at local senior centers as a prelude to a mail survey. The small group discussions were organized and conducted in a fraction of the time and cost that would have been involved with regular focus groups.

This qualitative component of the research ensured that we asked the appropriate questions in our proposed survey and asked them in the best possible way. This effort also helped us better anticipate responses to some open-ended questions and guide us in the interpretation of such response. Additionally, we were able to use the discussions to refine our response incentives for the planned survey.

The next step was a stratified random sample survey that exceeded 40 percent response, resulting in a wealth of needed information from health plan members and non-members. Our client was pleased with the relative ease that certain benefits were clearly identified as ideal candidates for reduction while others were recognized as potential trigger points for disenrollments and likely barriers to new enrollments.

The cost of the overall research was little more than a typical mail survey and completed within a comparable time frame. The end result of this effort was another of our quite successful research projects using linked methodologies.

To read the rest of this article on the Wayne Howard and Associates website, click here.

Wayne Howard is the Managing Director of his Claremont, California based health care marketing research and consulting firm, Wayne Howard and Associates. Contact him at 1-800-803-7296 or at info@waynehoward.com.