Hi Ana
thank you, I appreciate the offer of accessing your PhD
regards
Bernadette
-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ana Manzano-Santaella
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 10:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stakeholder engagement
Dear Bernadette,
All very relevant questions. Discussions here are focused on realist
synthesis but inevitably questions about realist evaluation appear.
My PhD was supervised by Ray Pawson an it was a realist evaluation. In my
thesis you can read in detail about the whole process of analysis when doing
a RE. Drop me an email and I will send it to you.
Best wishes
Ana
Dr Ana Manzano
Research Fellow in Healthcare Evaluation School of Sociology University of
Leeds Leeds
LS2 9JT
Tel. 0113 3431290
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bernadette Pinnell
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 22 June 2012 08:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stakeholder engagement
I am a PhD student trialling realist evaluation methodology to demonstrate
the value of a RE approach to evaluating interventions in public housing in
Sydney.
I am struggling to identify/clarify mechanisms in my case studies on the
impact of' social mix' as a theory of change. I am struggling with the way
in which they are mediated through the mind of individuals in particular.
Also generally how do account for interventions that are politically
motivated but use social theories as their 'mask' so to speak. ie they use
social mix but the actual intervention is dispersal and deconcentration of
tenants and construction of new housing which attract new residents Finally
I would be very interested in reading a realist evaluation not a paper on RE
to get an understanding of how to capture the three dimentional apporach of
CMO on a one dimensional medium - paper Thank you for your time and all
comments are gratefully received regards Bernadette Pinnell City Futures
Research Centre University of New South Wales
----- Original Message -----
From:
"Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards"
<[log in to unmask]> "James Thomas" <[log in to unmask]>
To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Cc:
Sent:
Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:10:24 +0100
Subject:
Re: Stakeholder engagement
You've probably come across this resource, but just in case you haven't:
http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/how
________________________________
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Trisha Greenhalgh
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 21 June 2012 13:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stakeholder engagement
GREAT set of resources Andrew.
We've got a paper in press for Milbank Q (first author Allan Best)
describing a realist review of large system chage which was funded and very
strongly driven by a Canadian State government which wanted to instigate
state-wide change The paper describes the various ways and stages in which
this (single) stakeholder was involved int he review. I'll share it when
it's ready as it's an example of how the realist approach both requires and
accommodates an 'extended' stakeholder role.
Prof Trisha Greenhalgh
Global Health, Policy and Innovation Unit Centre for Primary Care and Public
Health Blizard Institute Barts and The London School of Medicine and
Dentistry Yvonne Carter Building
58 Turner Street
London E1 2AB
t : 020 7882 7325 (PA) or 7326 (dir line) f : 020 7882 2552
e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Twitter @trishgreenhalgh
From: Andrew Booth <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: "Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving
Standards" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Andrew
Booth <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:30:03 +0100
To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Stakeholder engagement
Intyeresting post Gillian
This is an area that I am interested in. It is well covered in general
systematic review methods. Here are a few references incluiding one by
colleagues here at ScHARR:
Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Public involvement in the systematic review
process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples.
Health Policy. 2011 Oct;102(2-3):105-16.
Braye, S. & Preston-Shoot (2005) ‘Emerging from out of the shadows? Service
user and carer involvement in systematic reviews’, Evidence & Policy, vol.
1, no. 2, pp.173-193.
Keown K, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. Stakeholder engagement opportunities in
systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. J Contin
Educ Health Prof. 2008 Spring;28(2):67-72.
Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in
systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect.
2012 Mar 6. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00722.x. [Epub ahead of print]
PubMed PMID: 22390732.
Smith E, Donovan S, Beresford P, Manthorpe J, Brearley S, Sitzia J, Ross F.
Getting ready for user involvement in a systematic review. Health Expect.
2009 Jun;12(2):197-208.
Specifically for realist reviews I suppose the issue is in which of the
stages stakeholders are to be involved. There is potential in everything
from agreeing the question, suggesting potential "cases", supplying
evidencve, nominating or selecting/validating candidate theories, validating
review findings etcetera. A particular challenge is keeping the review
process and the consultation in synch as they both have different project
management timescales that will occasionally come in conflict.
We are currently worjking on two realist reviews with degrees of stakeholder
involvement. An appointment reminders realist review (TURNUP!) where
stakeholders will only be involved in the end and appropriately a review on
community engagement which threads stakeholder involvement throughout and is
labeled a "participatory realist review"
Be interested in further postings on thsi topic.
BW
Andrew
On 21/06/2012 12:19, Gillian Thomson wrote:
Dear All
I am new to the group - and new to realist reviews - so the opportunity to
read all comments/postings has been invaluable - thanks to all!
I wanted to pose a question to the group regarding stakeholder involvement
in undertaking a realist review. There is a group of us who are developing
a funding proposal to undertake a review around breastfeeding peer support
(as basically evidence is very inconsistent evidence and RCT results at odds
with qualitative insights - which we would largely suggest is due to the
wide heterogeneity in trials/service delivery, etc. So this approach feels
perfect to try and unravel exactly what is happening, why, who delivering,
etc.
SO with this in mind - I wanted some advice regarding how and when
stakeholders should be involved - obviously there is a number of us on the
bidding team - and the plan was to do some targeted consultations with
academics, commissioners, health professionals, peer supporters and some
service users who have experiential/theoretical knowledge in this area of
support. The guidance suggests that they are engaged within the 'concept
mining' phase (but early feedback from one of the RDS leads recommended that
they are only consulted once the review is completed as otherwise would bias
what is identified?!). My thoughts were that it would be useful to have
this stakeholder engagement throughout the process (so through concept
mining/sharing results of review as well as involvement in the data
synthesis process). What are your thoughts on this? Is there a key number
we should be aiming for, e.g. 20, 40, 60 stakeholders through the process -
or key ones to be engaged at key points?
Any help/advice, etc, would be greatly appreciated!
All the best
Gill
|