developed meta-narrative review as an adaptation of realist review, for use when a policy-related topic has been researched in different ways by multiple groups of scientists, especially when key terms have different meanings in different literatures. Realist review was originally developed by Pawson for complex social interventions to explore systematically how contextual factors influence the link between intervention and outcome (summed up in the question "what works, how, for whom, in what circumstances and to what extent?"). Theory-driven approaches to such reviews include realist and meta-narrative review. Qualitative and mixed-method reviews are often used to supplement, extend and in some circumstances replace Cochrane-style systematic reviews. A number of different approaches have been used to try to address this goal. A training module for researchers, including learning outcomes, outline course materials and assessment criteria.Īcademics and policymakers are increasingly interested in 'policy-friendly' approaches to evidence synthesis which seek to illuminate issues and understand contextual influences on whether, why and how interventions might work. A 'RAMESES' (Realist and Meta-review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards) statement (comparable to CONSORT or PRISMA) of publication standards for such reviews, published in an open-access academic journal.ģ. Quality standards and methodological guidance for realist and meta-narrative reviews for use by researchers, research sponsors, students and supervisorsĢ. The outputs of the study will be threefold:ġ. We will: collate and summarise existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist and meta-narrative systematic review consider the extent to which these principles have been followed by published and in-progress reviews, thereby identifying how rigour may be lost and how existing methods could be improved using an online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts from academia and policy, produce a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards produce training materials with learning outcomes linked to these steps pilot these standards and training materials prospectively on real reviews-in-progress, capturing methodological and other challenges as they arise synthesise expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into more definitive guidance and standards disseminate outputs to audiences in academia and policy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |