 |
 |
Having just read the "12 myths" paper, it seems to me that most of the myths (whether true or not) are by the by, and wouldn't merit detailed rebuttals - they are largely about policy maker access to systematic reviews It seems to me that the fundamental issue, familiar to everyone on this list, is that while systematic reviews might have some relevance to policy makers, they are of very limited use because they ignore most of the evidence, do not engage adequately with context etc. The paper skates over this in the opening paragraphs. In the conclusion there is a suggestion that future initiatives can further improve policy relevance of systematic reviews. This would seem to be potentially a waste of resources - "flogging a dead horse" or "barking up the wrong tree". Of the myths themselves, I find myth 11 the most interesting: "There are no resources that start with a policy issue and work backwards to mobilize synthesized evidence about a problem, options for addressing it, or implementation considerations". 30 evidence briefs at http://www.mcmasterhealthforum.org/healthsystemsevidence-en are cited. I haven't looked at them, but the paper claims that they present "all of the available synthesized evidence related to the various elements of a poicy issue". These might be interesting to look at and consider the nature of the synthesis? Alan Boyd Research Associate in Healthcare and Public Sector Management The Herbert Simon Institute for Public Policy & Management Manchester Business School Email: [log in to unmask] Tel: 0161 275 2923 Fax: 0161 275 0557 Web: www.mbs.ac.uk/research/people/profiles/alan.boyd<http://www.mbs.ac.uk/research/people/profiles/alan.boyd> The University of Manchester Harold Hankins building University Precinct Centre Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL Information about the health management group at MBS is at: https://research.mbs.ac.uk/health/Home.aspx The latest Herbert Simon Institute Update magazine is at http://research.mbs.ac.uk/hsi/<http://research.mbs.ac.uk/hsi/Portals/0/docs/MBS_Update_Spring2011.pdf> ________________________________ From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Raymond Pawson [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 06 March 2013 08:51 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Journal suggestions for methodological papers 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/projdetails.php?ref=10-1012-07> 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<http://www.exeter.ac.uk/medicine/> Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane, Exeter, Devon, EX2 4SG [http://www.exeter.ac.uk/codebox/email-sig/images/MS_sig.gif]<http://www.exeter.ac.uk/medicine/> [http://www.exeter.ac.uk/codebox/email-sig/images/fb.gif] <http://www.facebook.com/exeteruni> [http://www.exeter.ac.uk/codebox/email-sig/images/twitter.gif] <http://twitter.com/uniofexeter> [http://www.exeter.ac.uk/codebox/email-sig/images/youtube.gif] <http://www.youtube.com/universityofexeter> [http://www.exeter.ac.uk/codebox/email-sig/images/li.gif] <http://www.linkedin.com/groups/University-Exeter-109267?mostPopular=&gid=109267> 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. [http://www.exeter.ac.uk/codebox/email-sig/images/hr.gif]