I would find this paper useful as well since I've done a pilot study but not got the data I need.
Many thanks
________________________________________
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Heather Trickey <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 13 November 2015 07:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Qualitative interviewing for mechanisms & 'active ingredient' terminology

Me too, please.
Heather

Heather Trickey
DECIPHer
Cardiff University


> On 12 Nov 2015, at 17:45, Sara Mallinson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex
>
> Can you email me a  copy too?
>
> Cheers
>
> Sara
>
> ___________________________
>
> Sara Mallinson, PhD
>
> Senior Research and Evaluation Consultant
>
> Workforce Research and Evaluation
>
> 10301 Southport Lane SW
>
> Calgary, Alberta, T2W 1S7
>
>
> Alberta Health Services
>
> www.albertahealthservices.ca
> ________________________________________
> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alex Clark [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: November 11, 2015 11:51 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Qualitative interviewing for mechanisms & 'active ingredient' terminology
>
> Thanks for suggesting my SSM paper....happy to share it if anyone would like a copy.
>
> The paper  seeks to look at all the different conceptions one can take to these things we call 'components'- although it argues that the full blown realist conception is the most appropriate.
>
> Alex
>
> Alexander M Clark PhD RN BA(Hons) FCAHS
>
> Associate Dean (Research) and Professor
>
> Faculty of Nursing
>
> University of Alberta
>
> Edmonton, ALB, Canada
>
> Office: ECHA 5-166
>
>
>
> Office Tel: 780 492 8505
>
> Direct line Tel: 780 492 6764
>
> General Fax: 780 492 2551
>
> Twitter: @alexclark1944
>
>
> On 2 November 2015 at 08:23, Rebecca Randell <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Hi Caroline
>
> Another article that I would recommend to help with your thinking about the active ingredients question is one that I came across thanks to this list:
>
> Clark A. What are the components of complex interventions in healthcare? Theorizing approaches to parts, powers and the whole intervention. Social Science & Medicine 93 (2013) 185-193
>
> Regarding the interviews, we have used the teacher-learner cycle approach which I have found really helpful in drawing out people’s reasoning – similar to Avril’s comment about giving people examples from other interviews, presenting the theories we found in the literature gave the interviewees something to engage with, test their ideas against, and I think provided us with much richer data than if we’d taken a more standard semi-structured interview approach.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Rebecca
>
> Dr Rebecca Randell
> Lecturer
> School of Healthcare
> Baines Wing
> University of Leeds
> Leeds LS2 9UT
> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> [cid:image001.jpg@01D11582.69065710]<http://250greatminds.leeds.ac.uk/?utm_source=emailmessage&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=thrive2>
>
> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Avril Nicoll
> Sent: 02 November 2015 09:36
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Qualitative interviewing for mechanisms & 'active ingredient' terminology
>
>
> Hi Caroline,
>
> Would it be worth your RA trying out a less structured approach? Being asked questions about reasoning can be quite confronting, particularly where there are power differentials, so there's a case for just getting people talking about their stroke, about their everyday activities and being ready to pick up on anything that seems to be relevant to your research questions, particularly if there are signs of heightened emotion. I also think examples from other interviews can be really helpful in allowing participants to see that other people have a range of experiences, and it's fairly natural to compare these with their own. Your longitudinal design also allows similar discussion around changes in their accounts over time. There are some interesting papers around interviewing people with learning disabilities and children with speech, language and communication needs that might give you other ideas. I'm on a train to the Realism Leeds conference, but could send you links off list when I get home on Friday if you like.
>
> Re 'active ingredients', metaphors that resonate are worth capitalising on. Could you adapt it in terms of context by also talking about 'the kitchen'?? You may already have come across Penelope Hawe but, if not, she writes very well on context and complex interventions - see eg 'Lessons from complex interventions to improve health' Annu. Rev. Public Health 2015 36:307-23. Point 6 in her summary seems especially relevant: 'Theory and evaluation of complex interventions have moved away from viewing an intervention as a program, technology, or set of products to represent interventions as routines, relationships, resources, power structures, symbols, forms of talk, "powerful ideas," and sets of values.'
>
> Looking forward to hearing more about your study in due course.
>
> Avril
>
> (PhD student, NMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling)
>
> Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
>
>
> ---- Caroline Stretton wrote ----
> Hello fellow realists,
> I have two questions I would welcome any thoughts on:
> My project is  am trying to build and refine a treatment ( programme theory) on how to promote sustained behaviour change in people with stroke.
> I have developed an intervention based on my programme theory and am doing small a case study impact evaluation on the recipients of the programme.
> I have a research assistant completing semi-structured qualitative interviews at mid programme, post programme and at 3 months follow up. I want to understand the causal change mechanisms that are hopefully being activated by the innovative programme.
>
> I have just listened to some of the mid-programme interviews and the post programme interviews are due to be completed later this week. There is some interesting information coming through but I am struggling to know how to guide my RA to ask questions that can really get to the heart of the participants reasoning. One of the main reasons I think is the characteristics of my population. My participants come from a low socio economic area, many have English as a second language, the majority have delayed information processing ( cognitive problems) following their stroke, and are not used to being particularly self-reflective or dealing with abstract issues. Does anyone have any helpful suggestions for how to phrase questions that might help me get some more in-depth data at the next interview point ?
>
> My second questions relates to the use of the phrase ‘active ingredients’ and whether it is helpful. I am hoping that my programme theory will be of practical use for clinicians.  From my professional background- theory based approaches are very uncommon and viewed as largely irrelevant to practice. However the metaphor of ‘active ingredients’ taken from a pharmacological model seems to resonate clinicians. Using the concept of ‘active ingredients’  and defining it as being the rehabilitation component that can ‘activate’ the causal change mechanism on one level would make sense to clinicians. However this runs the risk of ignoring the very significant contextual issues that affect firing or perhaps the fact that it is likely it is interacting ingredients that are part of complex interventions like rehabilitation. What are your thoughts about the phrase ‘active ingredients’ from a realist perspective
>
> Thank you in anticipation
> Caroline Stretton
>
>
>
>
>
> Caroline Stretton
> Doctoral Student
> School of Clinical Sciences
> Auckland University of Technology
>
>
> P 09 921 9999 ext 7697    E [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>    W aut.ac.nz<https://www.aut.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> The University is ranked in the QS World Rankings of the top 5% of universities in the world (QS World University Rankings, 2014)
> The University of Stirling is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC 011159.
>
>
> This message and any attached documents are only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential and may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, retransmission, or other disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and then delete the original message. Thank you.