BackgroundSystematic review methodologies can be harnessed to help researchers to understand and explain how complex interventions may work. Typically, when reviewing complex interventions, a review team will seek to understand the theories that underpin an intervention and the specific context for that intervention. A single published report from a research project does not typically contain this required level of detail. A review team may find it more useful to examine a “study cluster”; a group of related papers that explore and explain various features of a single project and thus supply necessary detail relating to theory and/or context.We sought to conduct a preliminary investigation, from a single case study review, of techniques required to identify a cluster of related research reports, to document the yield from such methods, and to outline a systematic methodology for cluster searching.MethodsIn a systematic review of community engagement we identified a relevant project – the Gay Men’s Task Force. From a single “key pearl citation” we conducted a series of related searches to find contextually or theoretically proximate documents. We followed up Citations, traced Lead authors, identified Unpublished materials, searched Google Scholar, tracked Theories, undertook ancestry searching for Early examples and followed up Related projects (embodied in the CLUSTER mnemonic).ResultsOur structured, formalised procedure for cluster searching identified useful reports that are not typically identified from topic-based searches on bibliographic databases. Items previously rejected by an initial sift were subsequently found to inform our understanding of underpinning theory (for example Diffusion of Innovations Theory), context or both. Relevant material included book chapters, a Web-based process evaluation, and peer reviewed reports of projects sharing a common ancestry. We used these reports to understand the context for the intervention and to explore explanations for its relative lack of success. Additional data helped us to challenge simplistic assumptions on the homogeneity of the target population.ConclusionsA single case study suggests the potential utility of cluster searching, particularly for reviews that depend on an understanding of context, e.g. realist synthesis. The methodology is transparent, explicit and reproducible. There is no reason to believe that cluster searching is not generalizable to other review topics. Further research should examine the contribution of the methodology beyond improved yield, to the final synthesis and interpretation, possibly by utilizing qualitative sensitivity analysis.

BackgroundCommunity-based peer support (CBPS) has been proposed as a potentially promising approach to improve health literacy (HL) and reduce health inequalities. Peer support, however, is described as a public health intervention in search of a theory, and as yet there are no systematic reviews exploring why or how peer support works to improve HL.ObjectiveTo undertake a participatory realist synthesis to develop a better understanding of the potential for CBPS to promote better HL and reduce health inequalities.Data sourcesQualitative evidence syntheses, conceptual reviews and primary studies evaluating peer-support programmes; related studies that informed theoretical or contextual elements of the studies of interest were included. We conducted searches covering 1975 to October 2011 across Scopus, Global Health (including MEDLINE), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database (PQDT) [including the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Social Work Abstracts], The King’s Fund Database and Web of Knowledge, and the Institute of Development Studies supplementary strategies were used for the identification of grey literature. We developed a new approach to searching called ‘cluster searching’, which uses a variety of search techniques to identify papers or other research outputs that relate to a single study.Study eligibility criteriaStudies written in English describing CBPS research/evaluation, and related papers describing theory, were included.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsStudies were selected on the basis of relevance in the first instance. We first analysed within-programme articulation of theory and appraised for coherence. Cross-programme analysis was used to configure relationships among context, mechanisms and outcomes. Patterns were then identified and compared with theories relevant to HL and health inequalities to produce a middle-range theory.ResultsThe synthesis indicated that organisations, researchers and health professionals that adopt an authoritarian design for peer-support programmes risk limiting the ability of peer supporters (PSs) to exercise autonomy and use their experiential knowledge to deliver culturally tailored support. Conversely, when organisations take a negotiated approach to codesigning programmes, PSs are enabled to establish meaningful relationships with people in socially vulnerable groups. CBPS is facilitated when organisations prioritise the importance of assessing community needs; investigate root causes of poor health and well-being; allow adequate time for development of relationships and connections; value experiential cultural knowledge; and share power and control during all stages of design and implementation. The theory now needs to be empirically tested via further primary research.LimitationsAnalysis and synthesis were challenged by a lack of explicit links between peer support for marginalised groups and health inequalities; explicitly stated programme theory; inconsistent reporting of context and mechanism; poor reporting of intermediate process outcomes; and the use of theories aimed at individual-level behaviour change for community-based interventions.ConclusionsPeer-support programmes have the potential to improve HL and reduce health inequalities but potential is dependent upon the surrounding equity context. More explicit empirical research is needed, which establishes clearer links between peer-supported HL and health inequalities.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002297.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

Background: Comprehensive School Health (CSH) approaches to developing a healthy school community can be effective in supporting chronic disease prevention while positively impacting on student behaviour and academic performance. Although a CSH framework provides principles for action, there is a lack of evidence regarding the processes that best facilitate CSH work, and enable action. Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the elements of practice-based evidence that contribute to the success and sustainability of healthy school communities, through the identification of positive practices and lessons learned from a sample of projects in Alberta, Canada. Setting: School communities in Alberta, Canada. Design and methods: Key individuals from a list of operating CSH projects were invited for interview. An exploratory, qualitative design examined the perspectives of these 'school health champions'. A total of 12 one-on-one interviews and one focus group with seven participants were completed, resulting in input from 19 individuals in total. Results: Elements to develop and sustain a healthy school community fall into one of two categories: (1) stakeholder buy-in and (2) adequate resources in the form of human resources, partnerships and peer support. Participants identified successful strategies for establishing buy-in from administrators, teachers, parents and students. Conclusion: To effectively mobilise a comprehensive school health framework, practical strategies for implementation are needed. While some of these strategies are context-specific, practice-based evidence that transcends the local context does exist and can be used more widely to support the development of a healthy school community.

It is often claimed that Margaret Cavendish was an anti-experimentalist who was deeply hostile to the activities of the early Royal Society—particularly in relation to Robert Hooke's experiments with microscopes. Some scholars have argued that her views were odd or even childish, while others have claimed that they were shaped by her gender-based status as a scientific ‘outsider’. In this paper I examine Cavendish's views in contemporary context, arguing that her relationship with the Royal Society was more nuanced than previous accounts have suggested. This contextualized approach reveals two points: first, that Cavendish's views were not isolated or odd when compared with those of her contemporaries, and second, that the early Royal Society was less intellectually homogeneous than is sometimes thought. I also show that, although hostile to some aspects of experimentalism, Cavendish nevertheless shared many of the Royal Society's ambitions for natural philosophy, especially in relation to its usefulness and the importance of plain language as a means to disseminate new ideas.

No abstract