4 reviews were re-reviews [a], Gave the number of documents screened, assessed for eligibility, and included, Appraisal of evidence was done by two or more persons independently, 1 used appraisal from systematic review The results of the review combine theoretical understanding and empirical evidence, and focus on explaining the relationship between the context in which the intervention is applied, the mechanisms by which it works and the outcomes which are produced. Organizations are encouraged to learn from failures. Five reviews described themselves as a systematic review in their title (although three of these did not follow the basic procedures required for systematic reviews). The aim of this realist systematic review [1,2,3] is to identify and synthesise studies that explore oral health interventions for people living with mental disorders.The terms mental disorder and mental illness are often used interchangeably. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. Details of 14 Abstracts (Not Included in This Study). . We (the two coauthors), working independently, read all the titles and abstracts resulting from the search process. Consistent with realist review quality standards, articles retrieved from electronic databases were systematically screened and analysed to elicit explanations of … Main findings: Present the key findings with a specific focus on theory building and testing, 15. For a review type that accepts all forms of evidence—qualitative, quantitative, comparative, mixed-methods, administrative records, annual reports, legislative materials, conceptual critique, personal testimony (Pawson et al., 2004)—it was surprising that there was about six times as many quantitative studies as qualitative studies included, and that no reviews mentioned including letters to editors, newspaper articles, opinion surveys, oral histories, or the like. We included 71 publications representing 54 realist reviews. editorial. This product could help you, Accessing resources off campus can be a challenge. It is edited by Mervyn Hartwig and a team of other scholars. Greenhalgh, T , Robert, G , Bate, P , Kyriakidou, O , Macfarlane, F , Peacock, R. How to Spread Ideas: A Systematic Review of the Literature on Diffusion, Dissemination and Sustainability of Innovations in Health Service Delivery and Organisation. In fact, the aim of a realist review is “to articulate underlying programme theories and then to interrogate the existing evidence to find out whether and where these theories are pertinent and productive” (Pawson, 2006, p. 74). The Journal of Urology, 186(1), 266-272. Members of _ can log in with their society credentials below, Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. Specifically, one stated, the “re-review offers a fuller understanding of the impacts of these interventions and how they are produced . ESRC Research Methods Programme. To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access. Review: Realist review (also known as realist synthesis) is particularly helpful for this task. 1 possibly, The 24 unclear reviews did not state whether any form was used, Data extraction was done by two or more persons independently, 2 checked by 2nd person These reviews were published between 2004 and 2015 (listed in Appendix A). Improving best practice for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review Katharine Weetman , Geoff Wong , Emma Scott , Eilidh MacKenzie , Stephanie Schnurr , Jeremy Dale BMJ Open Jun 2019, 9 (6) e027588; DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027588 Please check you selected the correct society from the list and entered the user name and password you use to log in to your society website. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, NORWAY; a realist review does not provide concrete and absolute answers and, as a result, the possibility for additional contributions to each theory may remain, as findings from a realist review are often provisional [48]. We note that the number of documents included was unclear in four reviews. Factors influencing intercultural doctor-patient communication: A realist review. Peer review is the essential part for maintaining substantial standard in publishing and brings out the best possible scientific novel information from the potential authors and researchers globally. Close to half (n=25) did not provide information about the types of documents included, while others included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies in different combinations. There were nine reports and three dissertations/theses. Accordingly, we used rapid realist review methodology as described by Saul et al. Challenges in systematic reviews: Synthesis of topics related to the delivery, organization, and financing of health care. (2005, October). [h] Ten reviews could not be assessed with regard to this item because the reviews were not funded. A realist review was conducted to research the way in which context influences how OSSs work. Most of the 54 reviews were published in peer-reviewed journals (n=42). We have not extracted data from these protocols. Realist review: A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. There is scope for improvement toward the goal of being explicit and transparent at each stage of the review, such that other researchers can understand and replicate the review. Objectives To identify features of programmes and approaches to make healthcare delivery in secondary healthcare settings more dementia-friendly, providing a context-relevant understanding of how interventions achieve outcomes for people living with dementia. It explains when a realist impact evaluation may be most In contrast, often the country of origin of the first-author was the United Kingdom (n=23), although first-authors were also from Canada (n=11), Netherlands (n=6), Australia (n=5), Belgium (n=2), Sweden (n=2), the United States (n=2), Hong Kong (n=1), New Zealand (n=1), and Norway (n=1). Where disagreements occurred, we re-examined the review and resolved the question by discussion. Bates, S., Clapton, J., & Coren, E. (2007). Qualitative Research, 7, 375-422. The realist understanding of how programmes work Realist philosophy (Pawson and Tilley use the term ‘scientific realism’) considers that an intervention works (or not) because actors make particular decisions in response to the intervention (or not). Social Science Research and Decision-Making. This site uses cookies. As an additional example, many reviews included vague inclusion questions such as: Does the article/document focus on [topic]? Marshall, M , Shekelle, EP , Brook, R , Leatherman, S. Dying to Know: Public Release of Information about Quality of Health Care. This paper offers a model of research synthesis which is designed to work with complex social interventions or programmes, and which is based on the emerging ‘realist’ approach to evaluation. Experimental evidence shows that more errors occur with a single reviewer than with two reviewers (Buscemi, Hartling, Vandermeer, Tjosvold, & Klassen, 2005). We undertook a systematic scoping review to examine the current practice of realist reviews. (2013) and summarised in Figure 1. Table 1 shows the descriptive results for each reporting item to be included when reporting a realist review, Table 1. Submit Now » - Submit an Article to Inquiries Journal- The reviews covered a range of topics: health care system and technology, mental and somatic (ill) health, management, education, safety (e.g. Spencer, L , Ritchie, J , Lewis, J , Dillon, N. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence. referral … The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 111(6), 476-484. Coauthor Rigmor C. Berg extracted data from the reviews included in the study, using a pre-tested data extraction form (with 53 variables in total). Data extraction: Describe and explain which data or information were extracted from the included documents and justify this selection [d], 11. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Click the button below for the full-text content, 24 hours online access to download content. Can health insurance improve access to quality care for the Indian poor? Realist impact evaluation draws on the realism school of philosophy. Critical Realism (CR) is a branch of philosophy that distinguishes between the 'real' world and the 'observable' world. An illustrative example of a vague specification of eligibility criteria is quoted below: Studies were included if they were relevant to the synthesis question (i.e., examined some part of the relationship between [intervention] and [outcome]) and contributed to the refinement of a program theory identified during the first stage. Reporting of the RAMESES Publication Standards Items in the 54 Realist Reviews, 1. http://abstracts.cochrane.org/2009-singapore/epidemiology-and-quality-systematic-reviews-health-professional-behaviour-change. The 'real' can not be observed and exists independent from human perceptions, theories, and constructions. A systematic review [BEME guide no. Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. We have not extracted data from these abstracts. A realist review is a novel method that uses a qualitative method of synthesising research, which has an explanatory rather than judgmental focus. Our review of what approaches to social prescribing work, for whom, and in what circumstances, led by Kerryn Husk at the University of Plymouth and Ruth Garside here at ECEHH, has been published in the journal Health and Social Care in the Community!. It is possible that more development or clarification of the standards is needed. The incompleteness arose from the absence of information concerning study design, setting, intervention, and/or participants.