Thank you to all who responded and make contact. Very helpful feedback and I have some new avenues I am exploring for support. Much appreciated.
-Caroline-

-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jagosh, Justin
Sent: Friday, 8 May 2015 1:04 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What is in a name- realist review vs modified vs rapid?

Caroline,

Following Gill's comments, I'd say that if you've identified an outcome of interest, and you've been working back to understand the underlying mechanisms that have manifested within key contextual conditions, and you've identified and developed relevant  (middle-range) theory to support your explanitory analysis, you can indeed call this a realist review.

Realist review helps us recognize the complex array of factors involved in the production of interventions, but we are always working with partial knowledge so you are perfectly justified to have picked one specific outcome and to have theorized the intervention around that outcome. Describe it clearly and provide your rationale. The review doesn't have to be 'completely comprehensive' to be a realist review  because, well that's just not possible. Emphasize that the theoretical oputput of your work contributes to the cumulation of knowledge in this field over time.  Include a strong section on 'direction for future research' which can be informed by the results of your review. And I agree with Gill: transparency in your reporting is key!

best of luck,
Justin



Justin Jagosh, Ph.D
Senior Research Fellow
Centre for Advancement in Realist Evaluation and Synthesis (CARES) University of Liverpool, United Kingdom www.liverpool.ac.uk/cares



________________________________________
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Gill Westhorp [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: May 7, 2015 17:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What is in a name- realist review vs modified vs rapid?

Hi Caroline
Quick ideas in haste to which I hope others will add:

Re the name:  the important thing is to be transparent about what you've done and why.  Check your methods back against the Rameses standards and decide whether or not you have in fact modified them.  If so, say WHAT you've changed, WHY you've changed it, and WHETHER it's still consistent with the underlying principles of a realist review (if it's not, you can't really call it one).  Once you've done that, you'll be able to decide
whether or not it's modified or not.   I personally wouldn't use 'rapid'
unless you're being consistent with the principles of 'rapid' - if you're just managing the size for pragmatic reasons, I'd just say that.  But if (for example) your supervisors are fulfilling the FUNCTIONS of the advisory group in RRR - then you could say that.  My own approach would be to do the work and then decide the name.

Re other support - are you a member of the Australasian Evaluation Society?
It has a Realist Special Interest Group (the Realist SIG).  They do a 'remote book club', an occasional newsletter which includes upcoming realist training workshops in Australia - in which they'd happily include events in NZ if you knew of any!  Etc.  I can also put you on my waiting list for training in Australia if it's easier to get here than the other side of the world.

Cheers
Gill

-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Caroline Stretton
Sent: Friday, 8 May 2015 6:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: What is in a name- realist review vs modified vs rapid?

HI there,
My name is Caroline Stretton and I am about to enter my final year of my PhD. I am a physiotherapist by background and wanting to develop a theoretically informed intervention to change walking habits after stroke using behaviour change techniques and social support. My project has been informed by the MRC guidelines for the development of complex interventions and fits in the development phase of these guidelines. The primary purpose is to develop an understanding of likely causal mechanisms of change behind increasing levels of real world walking behaviour for this population.
It is a mixed methods project and I have just finished a systematic review and a qualitative enquiry into perspectives of people with stroke. The third phase is to undertake a realist synthesis in order to understand the CMO configurations. I intend on using these findings to develop my treatment theory. I have chosen realist methodology over others because I think the focus on contextual conditions ( i.e. real world settings amongst others) and mechanisms is the best fit.
I have been following this list serve for over a year and working through the scoping phase of my proposed synthesis. Currently I am developing my protocol for PROSPERO. I have 12 months to go. My main outcomes of interests are sustained change in walking habits, and the identified mechanisms.
In order to focus the review ( and my project)- I have deliberately kept my emphasis on sustained change in walking behaviour. I have chosen this outcome for conceptual, measurement, pragmatic reasons and my stake holder engagement confirms this is a wise choice. My long term hope is that the treatment theory carefully developed with one outcome with in one clinical population could potentially serve as a model to other activities and clinical populations.  I have two questions which would love your thoughts
on:

1) What should I call this?
Given I am primarily focusing on a limited number of outcomes ( i.e..
sustained change in walking behaviour and any of the identified mechanisms) and using it to develop an intervention theory ( programme theory) should I call it a 'realist synthesis?'  Gill Westhorp used the term 'modified' in her PhD thesis to describe the application of realist principles. I was wondering about using this phrase also. Or should I class it as a 'rapid realist synthesis' since time is a bit tight and my focus is more on developing an understanding of causal change mechanisms rather than being completely comprehensive. However it is not primarily stakeholder driven.

2) Realist review support:
I am from Auckland New Zealand. I have a wonderful supervisory team who are very supportive and experienced mixed methods researchers in rehabilitation and health psychology. However they are not experienced with realist review methodology ( and it is seldom used in my field). I noted with interest comments such as those by Emile Roberts on her slideshare from CARES  about making sure your supervisory team understood issues around realist methodology. I can't make it to a northern hemisphere conference.  Apart from appreciating this list serve, any other advice around methodological support?

Thanks in advance

Caroline=