 |
 |
Not sure I'd agree that meta-narrative and other constructivist methods don't inform policy. My meta-narrative review of diffusion of innovations directly informed LOTS of policy initiatives, including (I am told) the establishment of AHSCs and CLAHRCs. I too am a pluralist, and agree there's far more to review than realit and meta-narrative. Another way of hitting on the 'right' methodology for a particular review is define your 'client' / audience more precisely. Trish Greenhalgh Professor of Primary Health Care and Dean for Research Impact Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry 58 Turner St London E1 2AB UK +44 20 7882 7325 [log in to unmask] @trishgreenhalgh From: Andrew Booth <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Friday, 24 January 2014 13:09 To: Evolving Standards <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Trisha Greenhalgh <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: Rapid Realist Review - thoughts Dear List As a methodological pluralist I feel that there is an element of "for the person with a hammer (or in the case of this list TWO hammers) everything is a nail" in this response I agree with Trish that there are problems with the framing of the question especially as all the concepts are relative terms (I would add acceptable into the mix as well). The following are some methods considerations from slides I use: •“t"the output of some methods of synthesis (Thematic Synthesis, textual Narrative Synthesis, Framework Synthesis, and ecological triangulation) is more directly relevant to policymakers and designers of interventions than the outputs of methods with a more constructivist orientation (Meta-Study, Meta-Narrative, Meta-Ethnography, Grounded Theory, CIS) which are generally more complex and conceptual” (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009)" •TThematic Synthesis (including Meta-Aggregation) and Framework Synthesis produce findings to directly inform practitioners (Thomas & Harden, 2009) • Interpretive approaches (e.g. CIS, Meta-Ethnography [among others]) produce a model that requires practitioners to interpret relevance and applicability to their own context •Narrative Synthesis or EPPI-Centre (matrix) methods may help to integrate and present quantitative/qualitative work I too am attracted to the idea of Rapid Realist Review but not for the purposes that Kev suggests. If the range of service delivery methods was narrowed down first to those that are "viable" then I might seek to explore what might work for whom under what circumstances but in an orthodox (not rapid) review). I would tend to use a rapid realist review for a question where the overall method of service delivery was starting to become clear but where I wanted to think about what might be the prerequisite mechanisms and what might be the optional extras of what might work. I too am booked on the Liverpool workshop so will look forward to having a chance to defend my stance! BW ANdrew On 24/01/2014 12:43, Trish Greenhalgh wrote: Caoimhin Before the list gets going on this, can you try to redraft your research question so it doesn't involve a yes/no answer? This is key. If your research question is about mechanisms of change and how these link to resources and context, realist review may suit. If it's more about a wider scoping lit review on what research has been done on all aspects of oral health for people with disability, you may be beter with MNR. Trish Greenhalgh Professor of Primary Health Care and Dean for Research Impact Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry 58 Turner St London E1 2AB UK +44 20 7882 7325 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> @trishgreenhalgh On 24/01/2014 12:27, "Caoimhin Mac Giolla Phadraig" <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote: Hi there, My name is Caoimhin ( Kev in english ) and I am an early career researcher in Trinity College Dublin. This is my first time posting on this list, but have been watching developments with RAMESES for some time now. My research objective (currently a PhD project) is to use the research process to influence Dental Health policy and services for people with disabilities and vulnerable groups in Ireland. The overall research question ( the review I mention later is a single strand ) asks: Is it possible to establish accessible, effective and efficient quality oral healthcare for people with disabilities in Ireland? I have been at this for two years with little concrete effect - but have increasingly seen the opportunity to effect change through the use of a Realist Review process - I think - and this is why I seek clarification >from those who set the standards: 1. Policy makers may want answers to specific questions (e.g. specific service models) rather than theories to be applied. Do you feel RR methods will lead to this - or is Meta-narrative approach better? 2. Policy makers who I hope to influence are under time constraints and therefore, if answers are not forthcoming quickly ( through research process), the decisions may be made without consideration of what the literature can tell us about "what works for whom and in what context". This would not be ideal. This time pressure lead me to read up on Rapid Realist Reviews. Are these acceptable methods in your views? I welcome any feedback and if any of you are at the workshop in Liverpool in March, I look forward to seeing you there. Kind regards, Kev -- Dr Andrew Booth BA Dip Lib MSc PhD MCLIP Reader in Evidence Based Information Practice Health Economics and Decision Science School of Health & Related Research (ScHARR) University of Sheffield Regent Court 30 Regent Street Sheffield S1 4DA Tel: +44 (0) 114 222 0705 Fax:+44 (0) 114 272 4095 Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/ir/staff/boothhttp://scharrheds.blogspot.com/ Lead Author of Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, Sage Publishers, 2011. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~