Background: Several interacting factors, such as the evidence, modes of delivery, and care recipients and their contexts influence the success or failure of implementation and practice development in health services. Mixed-methods research has the potential to unpack these elements and clarify their effect. However, mixed-methods approaches embedded in different worldviews may challenge both the designing and conducting of such studies.
\n
\nAims and objectives: To share lessons learned in a research team whose members were novices in mixing methods situated in different paradigms within the same study. By sharing insight gained from reflecting on the advantages and challenges the team experienced, this article hopes to inspire researchers and practice developers to create and conduct innovative mixed-methods research, and also to help them avoid challenges that may hamper collaboration in such research and practice development teams.
\n
\nMethods: A retrospective reflection on lessons learned when designing, conducting and evaluating a facilitated education intervention in 24 Norwegian nursing homes from 2012 to 2015. The intervention aimed to help staff reduce the use of restraint in residents living with dementia, while the research study mixed a cluster-randomised controlled trial with participatory action research and ethnography to evaluate both the effect of the implementation process and the factors influencing it. The study findings prompted the retrospective reflection on lessons learned. Field notes from the first and third authors, as well as published advice and reports from experienced mixed-methods researchers were used in the reflection processes between the three authors.
\n
\nLessons learned: Qualitative data enriched the causal explanations based on trial findings and provided explanatory contextual illuminations of how implementation succeeded or failed in different nursing homes. However, conducting mixed-methods research in a multidisciplinary team with members anchored in either qualitative or quantitative traditions was challenging due to different paradigmatic positions, as well as the team’s reluctance to address openly the resulting difficulties.
\n
\nConclusions and implications for practice:
\n
\nMixing research methods may illuminate the powerful influence of context on the implementation and effectiveness of studies. As part of the preparation, researchers should allocate sufficient time to discuss potential differences in values and underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions, and demonstrate mutual methodological respect. The implications for practice are:
\nTheoretically informed mixed-methods evaluation offers the potential to identify and systematically evaluate the key components and outcomes of practice development endeavours
\nResults from rigorous mixed-methods research may enable more precision illumination of the complex interaction between the staff’s skills and intentions to perform person-centred care, and the contextual conditions employers offer them in which to practice their care
\nThus, mixed-methods research results may be useful, in terms of accountability and value for money, to health leaders, who are increasingly challenged to apply evidence-informed, person-centred approaches to care

As the International Practice Development Journal comes to the end of its eighth year, the editorial team is already planning the issues for 2019. So we’re not standing still by any means. Of course, the IPDJ still has much to achieve as it moves towards becoming internationally recognised as a high-quality and high-profile open access publication for health and social care practitioners, educators and academics working in practice development and related fields. One significant step in the pipeline is the search for a new academic editor and I hope, by this time next year, the person we have chosen will be shadowing me and getting ready to lead the journal as we move towards a new decade. 
\n
\nWe have set out our commitment to publish and make freely accessible scholarly inquiry into practice development and related fields (such as person-centredness). We also want to publish material that challenges assumptions and provokes new visions and ideas, helping health and welfare workers engage in dialogue about the contribution practice development and related approaches can make. This is an area to which we really need to give greater attention, and anyone with methodological contributions is warmly invited to make a submission for 2019. In addition, we intentionally enable first-time and novice writers to publish their practice development work in a scholarly way by facilitating the formation of writing partnerships with more experienced writers and through coaching with writing. By doing this, we are contributing to ensuring future generations of nurses are equipped to publish their activities.
\n
\nAlthough, open access status is criticised by some in academia, we believe our status as such and our registration with the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) have a positive impact on our readership. For example, DOAJ registration requires that we use DOI numbers, which we believe is enhancing our accessibility. We can see from our website ‘metrics’ that readership numbers are increasing, as are downloads of IPDJ articles. Overall, we are pleased to see interest in the journal continuing to grow; the average number of articles downloaded is rising year on year, with 1,000 per month in 2018 – in our first year the monthly average was just 75.
\n

Article number 3

and practitioners define and explore issues that arise in their work. It can be used to critically examine things that are going badly, or to look at things that are going well and to see how that happened and what can be done to continue the trend. 
\nAims: This article is a critical reflection of my experience of using reflection during my doctoral studies. It focuses on reflection using creative methods, for highlighting challenges and discovering identity and context. 
\nImplications for practice: 
\nThe process of reflection can highlight challenges and approaches needed when implementing a change initiative 
\nUsing creative methods of reflection can open up (unlock) new ways of knowing, encourage a more in-depth exploration of experiences and promote dialogue