Trish Greenhalgh

RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses

BackgroundThere is growing interest in realist synthesis as an alternative systematic review method. This approach offers the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas -for example, by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. No previous publication standards exist for reporting realist syntheses. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The projects aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for realist systematic reviews.MethodsWe (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist syntheses; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published syntheses, thereby identifying how rigor may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, realist research, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing realist syntheses and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence syntheses and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards.ResultsWe identified 35 published realist syntheses, provided real-time support to 9 on-going syntheses and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 37 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 19 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 91%.ConclusionThis project used multiple sources to develop and draw together evidence and expertise in realist synthesis. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Realist synthesis is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of realist syntheses.To encourage dissemination of the RAMESES publication standards, this article is co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and is freely accessible on Wiley Online Library (http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan). Please see related article http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/20 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/22

A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects

BackgroundCommunity-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is an approach in which researchers and community stakeholders form equitable partnerships to tackle issues related to community health improvement and knowledge production. Our 2012 realist review of CBPR outcomes reported long-term effects that were touched upon but not fully explained in the retained literature. To further explore such effects, interviews were conducted with academic and community partners of partnerships retained in the review. Realist methodology was used to increase the understanding of what supports partnership synergy in successful long-term CBPR partnerships, and to further document how equitable partnerships can result in numerous benefits including the sustainability of relationships, research and solutions.MethodsBuilding on our previous realist review of CBPR, we contacted the authors of longitudinal studies of academic-community partnerships retained in the review. Twenty-four participants (community members and researchers) from 11 partnerships were interviewed. Realist logic of analysis was used, involving middle-range theory, context-mechanism-outcome configuration (CMOcs) and the concept of the ‘ripple effect’.ResultsThe analysis supports the central importance of developing and strengthening partnership synergy through trust. The ripple effect concept in conjunction with CMOcs showed that a sense of trust amongst CBPR members was a prominent mechanism leading to partnership sustainability. This in turn resulted in population-level outcomes including: (a) sustaining collaborative efforts toward health improvement; (b) generating spin-off projects; and (c) achieving systemic transformations.ConclusionThese results add to other studies on improving the science of CBPR in partnerships with a high level of power-sharing and co-governance. Our results suggest sustaining CBPR and achieving unanticipated benefits likely depend on trust-related mechanisms and a continuing commitment to power-sharing. These findings have implications for building successful CBPR partnerships to address challenging public health problems and the complex assessment of outcomes.

Assessing the outcomes of participatory research: protocol for identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesizing the literature for realist review

BackgroundParticipatory Research (PR) entails the co-governance of research by academic researchers and end-users. End-users are those who are affected by issues under study (e.g., community groups or populations affected by illness), or those positioned to act on the knowledge generated by research (e.g., clinicians, community leaders, health managers, patients, and policy makers). Systematic reviews assessing the generalizable benefits of PR must address: the diversity of research topics, methods, and intervention designs that involve a PR approach; varying degrees of end-user involvement in research co-governance, both within and between projects; and the complexity of outcomes arising from long-term partnerships.MethodsWe addressed the above mentioned challenges by adapting realist review methodology to PR assessment, specifically by developing inductively-driven identification, selection, appraisal, and synthesis procedures. This approach allowed us to address the non-uniformity and complexity of the PR literature. Each stage of the review involved two independent reviewers and followed a reproducible, systematic coding and retention procedure. Retained studies were completed participatory health interventions, demonstrated high levels of participation by non-academic stakeholders (i.e., excluding studies in which end-users were not involved in co-governing throughout the stages of research) and contained detailed descriptions of the participatory process and context. Retained sets are being mapped and analyzed using realist review methods.ResultsThe librarian-guided search string yielded 7,167 citations. A total of 594 citations were retained after the identification process. Eighty-three papers remained after selection. Principle Investigators (PIs) were contacted to solicit all companion papers. Twenty-three sets of papers (23 PR studies), comprising 276 publications, passed appraisal and are being synthesized using realist review methods.DiscussionThe systematic and stage-based procedure addressed challenges to PR assessment and generated our robust understanding of complex and heterogeneous PR practices. To date, realist reviews have focussed on evaluations of relatively uniform interventions. In contrast our PR search yielded a wide diversity of partnerships and research topics. We therefore developed tools to achieve conceptual clarity on the PR field, as a beneficial precursor to our theoretically-driven synthesis using realist methods. Findings from the ongoing review will be provided in forthcoming publications.

Implementing supported self-management for asthma: a systematic review and suggested hierarchy of evidence of implementation studies

BackgroundAsthma self-management remains poorly implemented in clinical practice despite overwhelming evidence of improved healthcare outcomes, reflected in guideline recommendations over three decades. To inform delivery in routine care, we synthesised evidence from implementation studies of self-management support interventions.MethodsWe systematically searched eight electronic databases (1980 to 2012) and research registers, and performed snowball and manual searches for studies evaluating implementation of asthma self-management in routine practice. We included, and adapted systematic review methodology to reflect, a broad range of implementation study designs. We extracted data on study characteristics, process measures (for example, action plan ownership), asthma control (for example, patient reported control questionnaires, days off school/work, symptom-free days) and use of health services (for example, admissions, emergency department attendances, unscheduled consultations). We assessed quality using the validated Downs and Black checklist, and conducted a narrative synthesis informed by Kennedy’s whole systems theoretical approach (considering patient, practitioner and organisational components and the interaction between these).ResultsWe included 18 studies (6 randomised trials, 2 quasi-experimental studies, 8 with historical controls and 3 with retrospective comparators) from primary, secondary, community and managed care settings serving a total estimated asthma population of 800,000 people in six countries. In these studies, targeting professionals (n = 2) improved process, but had no clinically significant effect on clinical outcomes. Targeting patients (n = 6) improved some process measures, but had an inconsistent impact on clinical outcomes. Targeting the organisation (n = 3) improved process measures, but had little/no effect on clinical outcomes. Interventions that explicitly addressed patient, professional and organisational factors (n = 7) showed the most consistent improvement in both process and clinical outcomes. Authors highlighted the importance of health system commitment, skills training for professionals, patient education programmes supported by regular reviews, and on-going evaluation of implementation effectiveness.ConclusionsOur methodology offers an exemplar of reviews synthesising the heterogeneous implementation literature. Effective interventions combined active engagement of patients, with training and motivation of professionals embedded within an organisation in which self-management is valued. Healthcare managers should consider how they can promote a culture of actively supporting self-management as a normal, expected, monitored and remunerated aspect of the provision of care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (registration number: CRD42012002898) Accessed 24 May 2015

Protocol—the RAMESES II study: developing guidance and reporting standards for realist evaluation

Introduction Realist evaluation is an increasingly popular methodology in health services research. For realist evaluations (RE) this project aims to: develop quality and reporting standards and training materials; build capacity for undertaking and critically evaluating them; produce resources and training materials for lay participants, and those seeking to involve them. Methods To achieve our aims, we will: (1) Establish management and governance infrastructure; (2) Recruit an interdisciplinary Delphi panel of 35 participants with diverse relevant experience of RE; (3) Summarise current literature and expert opinion on best practice in RE; (4) Run an online Delphi panel to generate and refine items for quality and reporting standards; (5) Capture ‘real world’ experiences and challenges of RE—for example, by providing ongoing support to realist evaluations, hosting the RAMESES JISCmail list on realist research, and feeding problems and insights from these into the deliberations of the Delphi panel; (6) Produce quality and reporting standards; (7) Collate examples of the learning and training needs of researchers, students, reviewers and lay members in relation to RE; (8) Develop, deliver and evaluate training materials for RE and deliver training workshops; and (9) Develop and evaluate information and resources for patients and other lay participants in RE (eg, draft template information sheets and model consent forms) and; (10) Disseminate training materials and other resources. Planned outputs: (1) Quality and reporting standards and training materials for RE. (2) Methodological support for RE. (3) Increase in capacity to support and evaluate RE. (4) Accessible, plain-English resources for patients and the public participating in RE. Discussion The realist evaluation is a relatively new approach to evaluation and its overall place in the is not yet fully established. As with all primary research approaches, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency.

Why the GMC should set up a central registry of doctors’ competing interests

This transparency can only be good for medical practice

Experiences of Self-Management Support Following a Stroke: A Meta-Review of Qualitative Systematic Reviews

Background Supporting self-management in stroke patients improves psychological and functional outcomes but evidence on how to achieve this is sparse. We aimed to synthesise evidence from systematic reviews of qualitative studies in an overarching meta-review to inform the delivery and development of self-management support interventions. Methods We systematically searched eight electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for qualitative systematic reviews (published January 1993 to June 2012). We included studies exploring patients’, carers’ or health care professionals’ experiences relevant to self-management support following a stroke, including studies describing the lived experience of surviving a stroke. We meta-synthesised the included review findings using a meta-ethnographic framework. Results Seven reviews, reporting 130 unique studies, were included. Themes emerging from the reviews were pertinent, consistent and showed data saturation; though explicit mention of self-management support was rare. Our meta-review highlighted the devastating impact of stroke on patients’ self-image; the varying needs for self-management support across the trajectory of recovery; the need for psychological and emotional support throughout recovery particularly when physical recovery plateaus; the considerable information needs of patients and carers which also vary across the trajectory of recovery; the importance of good patient-professional communication; the potential benefits of goal-setting and action-planning; and the need for social support which might be met by groups for stroke survivors. Conclusions The observed data saturation suggests that, currently, no further qualitative research simply describing the lived experience of stroke is needed; we propose that it would be more useful to focus on qualitative research informing self-management support interventions and their implementation. Our findings demonstrate both the on-going importance of self-management support and the evolving priorities throughout the stages of recovery following a stroke. The challenge now is to ensure these findings inform routine practice and the development of interventions to support self-management amongst stroke survivors.

Telecare Call Centre Work and Ageing in Place

We report findings from a study of call centre staff working to deliver a telecare service designed to enable older people to ‘age in place’. We show the steps they routinely take to produce a care system on behalf of their clients and their families that is both workable within the constraints of available resources and fit-for-purpose. In doing so, we have seen how call centre staff share with one another their experiences and solutions to problems, carry out liaison work with networks of lay carers, and generally act as the ‘glue’ providing the all-important link between otherwise fragmented services. We conclude with some thoughts on the significant technical and organizational challenges if the ‘ageing in place’ vision is to be realized in a practical, secure, dependable and cost-effective way.

Future-proofing relationship-based care: a priority for general practice.

> Trish Greenhalgh asked the College Annual Scientific Meeting in October how we can preserve the therapeutic doctor–patient relationships that are at the centre of general practice. I began my talk by describing (with consent) two patients whom I had seen in my surgery the previous week. One I had known for many years; the other was newly registered. Both had multiple chronic conditions that had affected them physically, cognitively, emotionally, and economically. Through a brief analysis of these ‘cases’, I illustrated how effective care in general practice is delivered through, and enhanced by, a strong therapeutic relationship. We know in our bones (as a result of everything our patients have taught us over the years) that knowing our patients is not merely a matter of adding up the test results or filling in the QOF template. Managing our patients is not merely about making the occasional evidence-based decision and playing every member of the multidisciplinary team to their strengths. It is also, of course, about following the story of the person in context: the individual nested in the family, nested in the community — …