Ah yes, I so agree that it's positive. I just think that a positive step doesn't equal unproblematic!
I should mention my vested interest too. I'm an investigator on one of the realist reviews that got funded through this call (assuming 'this call' to be the DFID/AusAID/IIIE call), and an external support person for others. However - there are some dilemmas with trying to squeeze the realist methodology into the way the call has been structured - about which I expect to be able to say much more later, when we're through the process.
The other thoughts that were triggered though related to:
a) how to get funders of reviews to understand the implications of the different methods - in part for how to structure calls, but also for findings (cf 'all arriving at the same findings, useful to all policy bods...' etc)
b) what the implications of staffing turnover in bureaucracies might be for their understanding of the differences...
Cheers
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Pearson
Sent: Friday, 22 July 2011 10:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Realist compared to other systematic reviews
I must be wearing my upbeat hat today - despite the contradictions and somewhat dubious claims in parts of the text Gill extracted, I think it s very positive that proposals using M-E, NS, RS, etc. were invited in an area (international development) where the use of systematic reviews is relatively novel. Nevertheless, the text Gill extracted is certainly worth discussing from a realist perspective!
I should mention my vested interest I m PI on one of the (conventional systematic) reviews that got funded through this call. Our review will use some of the tools and techniques of narrative synthesis (Popay, Britten et al) to help us get a handle on how context impacts on effectiveness. One point to note when our protocol was reviewed, we were asked why we weren t doing a theory-driven review, to which my rather blunt reply (beyond the fact that this wasn t what funding had been awarded for) was:
1) The resources aren t on the table
2) The review team don t have the skills (or the time to develop them within the commissioned project)
Of course, neither of these are insurmountable but these rather substantial humps can strangle good intentions (to put other review methods such as RS into practice) at birth
Mark
Mark Pearson PhD
Research Fellow
Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG) Peninsula College of Medicine & Dentistry (University of Exeter)
E: [log in to unmask]
T: 0044 (0) 1392 726079
http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk/pentag/staff.php?selstaff=mpearson
-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gill Westhorp
Sent: 18 July 2011 04:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Realist compared to other systematic reviews
And on another topic entirely: here's a set of little extracts from DFID's overview of systematic reviews (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/Publications/OverviewofSystematicReviews.pdf). I almost wish I had a post-grad research class so I could set the following with an essay topic - 'Discuss from a realist synthesis perspective'...
"There are many review methods, including meta-ethnography, narrative synthesis, realist synthesis and qualitative meta-summary for quantitative data as well as the meta-analysis approach to statistical data. ... The key element of a systematic review is the process, rather than the specific method used to aggregate and interpret data. ... A systematic review is also more rigorous than a literature review as anyone could follow the review protocol and arrive at similar conclusions. ... ... Systematic reviews produce authoritative assessments of the evidence base that should be relevant to all decision makers."
Comments from a realist perspective welcomed!
Gill
|
