Article

Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)

Healthcare Innovation and Policy Unit, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London E1 2AB, UK.
BMC Medical Research Methodology (Impact Factor: 2.17). 08/2011; 11:115. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-115
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There is growing interest in theory-driven, qualitative and mixed-method approaches to systematic review as an alternative to (or to extend and supplement) conventional Cochrane-style reviews. These approaches offer the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. However, the quality of such reviews can be difficult to assess. This study aims to produce methodological guidance, publication standards and training resources for those seeking to use the realist and/or meta-narrative approach to systematic review.
We will: [a] collate and summarise existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist and meta-narrative systematic review; [b] consider the extent to which these principles have been followed by published and in-progress reviews, thereby identifying how rigour may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; [c] using an online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts from academia and policy, produce a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; [d] produce training materials with learning outcomes linked to these steps; [e] pilot these standards and training materials prospectively on real reviews-in-progress, capturing methodological and other challenges as they arise; [f] synthesise expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into more definitive guidance and standards; [g] disseminate outputs to audiences in academia and policy. The outputs of the study will be threefold:1. Quality standards and methodological guidance for realist and meta-narrative reviews for use by researchers, research sponsors, students and supervisors2. A 'RAMESES' (Realist and Meta-review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards) statement (comparable to CONSORT or PRISMA) of publication standards for such reviews, published in an open-access academic journal.3. A training module for researchers, including learning outcomes, outline course materials and assessment criteria.
Realist and meta-narrative review are relatively new approaches to systematic review whose overall place in the secondary research toolkit is not yet fully established. As with all secondary research methods, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency of studies.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Geoff Wong, Aug 29, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
242 Views
  • Source
    • "On the other hand, positivist methods including content analysis and qualitative comparative analysis [e.g., 69] can also be used. Second, realist reviews (also called meta-narrative reviews or qualitative evidence synthesis reviews) are theory-driven interpretative reviews that were developed to inform, enhance, extend or alternatively supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision making [86]. They originated from criticisms of conventional systematic reviews and meta-analyses of noncomplex interventions that center on their simplistic, positivist underlying assumptions [87]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this article we develop a typology of review types and provide a descriptive insight into the most common reviews found in top IS journals. Our assessment reveals that the number of IS reviews has increased over the years. The majority of the 139 reviews are theoretical in nature, followed by narrative reviews, meta-analyses, descriptive reviews, hybrid reviews, critical reviews, and scoping reviews. Considering the calls for IS research to develop a cumulative tradition, we hope more review articles will be published in the future and encourage researchers who start a review to use our typology to position their contribution.
    Information & Management 02/2015; 52(2):183-199. DOI:10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008 · 1.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Finally, the Ophelia process draws upon realist methods. Realist methods are best known in the health sector through the recent popularity of realist synthesis [45-49]. The central feature of realist methods is the focus on the mechanisms by which programs have an effect, and the recognition that different mechanisms may be activated by different interventions in different contexts and for different people [49,50]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Health literacy is a multi-dimensional concept comprising a range of cognitive, affective, social, and personal skills and attributes. This paper describes the research and development protocol for a large communities-based collaborative project in Victoria, Australia that aims to identify and respond to health literacy issues for people with chronic conditions. The project, called Ophelia (OPtimising HEalth LIterAcy) Victoria, is a partnership between two universities, eight service organisations and the Victorian Government. Based on the identified issues, it will develop and pilot health literacy interventions across eight disparate health services to inform the creation of a health literacy response framework to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities. Methods/Design The protocol draws on many inputs including the experience of the partners in previous co-creation and roll-out of large-scale health-promotion initiatives. Three key conceptual models/discourses inform the protocol: intervention mapping; quality improvement collaboratives, and realist synthesis. The protocol is outcomes-oriented and focuses on two key questions: ‘What are the health literacy strengths and weaknesses of clients of participating sites?’, and ‘How do sites interpret and respond to these in order to achieve positive health and equity outcomes for their clients?’. The process has six steps in three main phases. The first phase is a needs assessment that uses the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ), a multi-dimensional measure of health literacy, to identify common health literacy needs among clients. The second phase involves front-line staff and management within each service organisation in co-creating intervention plans to strategically respond to the identified local needs. The third phase will trial the interventions within each site to determine if the site can improve identified limitations to service access and/or health outcomes. Discussion There have been few attempts to assist agencies to identify, and respond, in a planned way, to the varied health literacy needs of their clients. This project will assess the potential for targeted, locally-developed health literacy interventions to improve access, equity and outcomes.
    BMC Public Health 07/2014; 14(1):694. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-14-694 · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Realism understands causation, as working through mechanisms that operate, or not, according to context [27]. Realist approaches build plausible, evidenced explanations of observed outcomes, often for complex social interventions that have multiple components, operate across multiple sites, and involve multiple actors or agents [28,29]. The underlying premise is that the observed ‘demi-regular patterns’ of interactions between the components that make up complex interventions can be explained by mid-range theories. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Care homes in the UK rely on general practice for access to specialist medical and nursing care as well as referral to therapists and secondary care. Service delivery to care homes is highly variable in both quantity and quality. This variability is also evident in the commissioning and organisation of care home-specific services that range from the payment of incentives to general practitioners (GPs) to visit care homes, to the creation of care home specialist teams and outreach services run by geriatricians. No primary studies or systematic reviews have robustly evaluated the impact of these different approaches on organisation and resident-level outcomes. Our aim is to identify factors which may explain the perceived or demonstrated effectiveness of programmes to improve health-related outcomes in older people living in care homes. Methods/Design A realist review approach will be used to develop a theoretical understanding of what works when, why and in what circumstances. Elements of service models of interest include those that focus on assessment and management of residents’ health, those that use strategies to encourage closer working between visiting health care providers and care home staff, and those that address system-wide issues about access to assessment and treatment. These will include studies on continence, dignity, and speech and language assessment as well as interventions to promote person centred dementia care, improve strength and mobility, and nutrition. The impact of these interventions and their different mechanisms will be considered in relation to five key outcomes: residents’ medication use, use of out of hours’ services, hospital admissions (including use of Accident and Emergency) and length of hospital stay, costs and user satisfaction. An iterative three-stage approach will be undertaken that is stakeholder-driven and optimises the knowledge and networks of the research team. Discussion This realist review will explore why and for whom different approaches to providing health care to residents in care homes improves access to health care in the five areas of interest. It will inform commissioning decisions and be the basis for further research. This systematic review protocol is registered on the PROSPERO database reference number: CRD42014009112.
    05/2014; 3(1):49. DOI:10.1186/2046-4053-3-49
Show more