Hmm, yes, a dreary old defense indeed...ironically, on the same mailing list I discovered the 'twelve myths' article, a recent article popped up that I wonder may be a genius covert rebuttal to the myth-busters...The LaRocca et al. article is a Cochrane style systematic review of the effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies in public health...the authors found 64,391 KT titles, of which 346 were deemed 'potentially relevant', and miraculously, by dint of Cochranesque cleansing, only 5 were worthy of inclusion for full review. Amusingly, one of the worthy survivors was a gem penned by one of the co-authors of the review! After many rigorous tools were applied, much methodological handwringing, and a few obeisant genuflections to the proper authorities, it was concluded that there wasn't much to say really.

What really made it all worthwhile slogging through was the end discussion, where they acknowledged that they couldn't tell to what extent 'context' played a role in this whole complex mess, and that perhaps excluding all qualitative and mixed-methods evidence was a mistake of sorts....Ray and Trish will be pleased to note they recommended in the end that maybe a realist review approach, referencing the infamous Journal of Health Services and Research article Ray talks about above, might be more helpful!

I would be pleased to offer my help in any friendly bash at the godfathers/godmothers of the health systems evidence conglomerate.

Cheers, Simon.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:51 AM, R. aymond Pawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Harriet

 

The Journal of Health Services Research & Policy’s most cited paper is the early Pawson et al on realist review. Editors are well aware of their ‘markets’

 

They’ve just published a dreary old defence of the Cochrane / Campbell orthodoxy.

 

‘Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted’

 

I would be good if a little RAMESES group produced a rebuttal of the rebuttal. Anyone for tennis?

 

RAY 

 

 

 

From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Justin Jagosh, Mr
Sent: 05 March 2013 19:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Journal suggestions for methodological papers

 

Harriet,

 

We just submitted to a relatively new journal called 'Research Synthesis Methods' for a methods reflection paper from our RR. We haven't heard back from them yet so I can't tell you how receptive they are to the Realist approach but you might want to take a look at their website.

 

Justin

 

 

 

---

Justin Jagosh, Ph.D
Canadian Institutes of Health Research Post-Doctoral Fellow

Centre for Participatory Research at McGill (PRAM)

Department of Family Medicine
McGill University

[log in to unmask]

---

 

Office and Mailing Address:

Rm 426 - School of Population and Public Health

Universtity of British Columbia

Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3

604-822-3814

 

 

---

From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Harriet Hunt [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: March 5, 2013 7:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Journal suggestions for methodological papers

Hi all

 

I’m a long-time listener, first-time caller; and having worked on a recent Realist synthesis on intermediate care with Mark Pearson and Rob Anderson here at the University of Exeter I’m a keen advocate of the Realist approach.

 

My question is: can you suggest any journals which would make a good target for a methodologically-focussed paper on Realist synthesis? I’m not overly focussed on citation rates or impact factors, and am more interested in finding the right journal for the right audience.

 

All ideas are very welcome.

 

Thanks,

Harriet

 

Harriet Hunt Associate Research Fellow 01392 726074 www.exeter.ac.uk/medicine Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane, Exeter, Devon, EX2 4SG
	This email and any attachment may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or subject to copyright, and which may be exempt from disclosure under applicable legislation. It is intended for the addressee only. If you received this message in error, please let me know and delete the email and any attachments immediately. The University will not accept responsibility for the accuracy/completeness of this e-mail and its attachments.