Explanatory sequential mixed methods, 14,200 visits, 30 interviews

Mixed methods study poster example

A mixed methods study poster must show both strands and, more important, where they meet. This A0 landscape example uses an explanatory sequential design: records for 14,200 clinic visits show waits peaking at 41 minutes at 3 pm, then 30 patient interviews explain why, and a three row joint display ties each theme to the pattern it explains.

Create a poster with OneCraftA0 Landscape, printed at 1189 by 841 millimetres

The whole board

The poster at full size, exactly as it prints. Every number, citation and caption on it was written for this example, so the layout is being judged on real content.

CU
Why do afternoon waits run long? An explanatory sequential study of 14,200 clinic visits and 30 patient interviews
P. Okwuosa ¹, L. Vandermeer ¹, G. Castellano ²
1 Health Services Research Unit, Calderbrook University · 2 School of Nursing, Calderbrook University
Abstract
A general outpatient clinic recorded arrival and call times for 14,200 visits over twelve months. The mean wait was 26 minutes, but it climbed through the day from 12 minutes at 8 am to 41 minutes at 3 pm, and only the two hours from 2 pm to 4 pm averaged more than 30 minutes. The records showed when waits ran long but not why, so we then interviewed 30 patients who had waited in the afternoon. Three themes explained the pattern. Patients had no idea where they stood in the queue (22 of 30), afternoon lists absorbed morning overruns (17 of 30), and some left before being seen when nobody could tell them how long the wait would be (11 of 30). The two strands point to the same fix: the queue was not only slow in the afternoon, it was invisible to the people in it.
Background and sources
Wait time audits report averages, and averages hide the hours that generate complaints. Interview studies explain complaints but cannot say how common the experience is. An explanatory sequential design uses the numbers first to find where the problem sits, then talks to the people inside it. Here the records came first and set the interview sample. Sources: Brightwater and Lam (2023) on outpatient queue audits; Nkemelu (2024) on sequential designs in health services; Vandermeer (2025) on patient reported waits.
METHODS
Design. Explanatory sequential mixed methods: routine records first, interviews second, integrated in a joint display.
Records. 14,200 visits, March 2025 to February 2026. Wait is the minutes from check in to being called.
Interviews. 30 patients who waited after 1 pm, sampled for age, visit type and wait length, 20 to 40 minutes each.
Analysis. Mean wait by hour of arrival for the records; thematic analysis of the interviews by two researchers.
Integration. Each theme was set against the hour pattern it explained, in a three row joint display.
2 pm to 4 pm
the only hours with a mean wait over 30 minutes
38 and 41 minutes; 3,250 of 14,200 visits
8
10
12
2
4
010203040
Figure 1. Mean wait, minutes, by two hour block of arrival starting at 8, 10, 12, 2 and 4. The 2 pm to 4 pm block averages 39.5.
Source: clinic arrival and call records, 14,200 visits.
Interview themes
No sense of the queue, 22 of 30: patients could not tell whether they were next or tenth, and several asked at the desk more than once. Morning overruns, 17 of 30: patients had heard staff say the morning list was still running when afternoon appointments were due. Leaving unseen, 11 of 30: patients who had left on an earlier visit, or nearly did, said they would have stayed if told the wait. Older patients raised the queue most; working patients raised leaving.
Joint display
Row 1. Numbers: waits climb hourly from 12 minutes at 8 am to 41 at 3 pm. Interviews: no sense of the queue, 22 of 30. Meaning: the longest waits are also the least visible. Row 2. Numbers: the peak at 2 pm to 4 pm, just after the morning list ends. Interviews: morning overruns, 17 of 30. Meaning: the afternoon inherits the morning. Row 3. Numbers: the wait falls to 28 minutes after 4 pm. Interviews: leaving unseen, 11 of 30. Meaning: part of the late fall may be people who gave up, not faster service, which the records alone cannot show.
Key finding
The afternoon queue was both the longest and the one patients could not see.
Mean wait 26 minutes over 14,200 visits
Only 2 pm to 4 pm averaged over 30 minutes
22 of 30 patients had no sense of their place in the queue
Show the queue position and cap the morning list overrun

Block by block

What each block on the board is for, in the order a reader walks it.

Title band and three authors
The title asks why afternoon waits run long and names both strands. Three authors from the fictional Calderbrook University.
Top row: abstract, background and methods
The abstract covers both strands. Background explains why a sequential design and carries three short citations, since this layout has no reference block. Five method entries end with how the strands were integrated.
Key number and Figure 1
The stat block names 2 pm to 4 pm as the only hours averaging over 30 minutes. Bars give mean wait in five two hour blocks, peaking at 39.5 minutes.
Bottom row: interview themes
Three themes with their counts out of 30: no sense of the queue 22, morning overruns 17, leaving unseen 11.
Joint display
The integration matrix the row asked for, written as three rows of numbers, interviews and meaning, because this layout has no table block.
Key finding and takeaways
The callout joins the strands in one sentence; four takeaways end with the two changes the study points to.

What makes this board work

Integration has its own panel

Most mixed methods posters stop at two parallel halves. Here the joint display gets a full block, and its third row finds something neither strand shows alone: the 4 pm fall may be people giving up.

The sequence is visible in the layout

The top row holds the records and the method, the bottom row the interviews and their integration. A reader walking left to right and top to bottom follows the study in the order it was done.

The numbers reconcile across blocks

Weighting each hour by its visits gives a mean wait of 26 minutes over 14,200. The 2 pm and 3 pm hours, 38 and 41 minutes over 3,250 visits, average 39.5, which is the tallest bar in Figure 1.

Questions people ask

How do I show integration on a mixed methods poster?

Give it a block of its own, usually a joint display that lines up a quantitative result, the qualitative finding that explains it and what the two mean together. This board uses three rows. Without that panel a reader sees two small studies side by side and has to do the joining themselves.

Which strand goes first on a sequential design poster?

The one that came first in the study. In an explanatory sequential design the numbers lead and set the interview sample, so the records and the wait chart sit in the top row and the interviews below. An exploratory design, interviews then survey, would reverse the order.

Why does the figure group the hours into two hour blocks?

Ten hourly bars put a tick label under the chart legend on this narrow figure block. Five two hour blocks keep every label readable and still show the climb to 39.5 minutes from 2 pm to 4 pm. The hourly values, 12 minutes at 8 am to 41 at 3 pm, stay in the abstract and the stat block.

Where do references go when the layout has no reference block?

Into the end of a text section, as short author and year citations. This two row layout has sections, a figure, a stat block, a callout and a checked list but no reference block, so three citations close the background panel. Keep them short and put the full list in a handout.

How many interviews does a mixed methods poster need to report?

Report the number you did and how you chose them, not a target. These 30 patients were sampled from people who waited after 1 pm, for spread of age, visit type and wait length, because the records had already shown where the problem was. That link between strands is the point of the design.

Can routine records be the quantitative strand?

Yes. Here the quantitative strand is the clinic record of arrival and call times for 14,200 visits over twelve months, with wait defined as minutes from check in to being called. Say where the records came from and how the measure was defined, because readers cannot assume a survey instrument stands behind the numbers.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make one like this

Other poster examples

Case control study poster example

A case control study poster lives or dies on its exposure table, because every odds ratio has to rebuild from the counts beside it. This A0 landscape example compares 210 adults treated for kitchen burns with 420 controls matched on age across six exposures. Loose sleeves carry the largest odds ratio, 2.8, 95% CI 1.9 to 4.2.

Cross sectional study poster example

A cross sectional study poster reports how common something is at one moment, so its headline is a prevalence, not a change. This A0 landscape example surveys 3,600 students in 22 Queensland secondary schools in one week: 38% sleep under 8 hours on a school night, and short sleep is 1.9 times as common above 4 hours of recreational screen time.

Cohort study poster example

A cohort study poster has to show change over time in the same people, so the follow up waves carry the board. This A0 landscape example follows 2,400 hospital and factory workers for six years, 1,200 on rotating shifts and 1,200 on day work, and reports new hypertension with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9.

Want the steps in the builder? Read Add charts and diagrams, then choose the template, theme and size. For everything this generator can do, see the poster maker.

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .