Protocol for a realist review of complex interventions to prevent adolescents from engaging in multiple risk behaviours

Abstract

ObjectivesAdolescent risk behaviours are a key health concern. The purpose of this research is to gaina deeper understanding of how, why, for whom, and inwhat circumstances complex adolescent risk behaviourprevention programmes are most successful.Methods and analysisTo understand how adolescent risk behaviour prevention programmes work in a reallife context, a realist synthesis will be undertaken, operationalised in four phases. Phase one Developing a framework to map the theoretical and conceptual landscape of adolescent risk behaviour prevention. Guided by stakeholder consultation. Phase two Formulating initial programme theories through exploration of the literature, along with primary data from professional stakeholder interviews. Phase three Refining programme theories through more purposeful, in depth screening of the literature, along with primary qualitative data, from young people and professionals. Data will be collected through semi structured focus groups, to explore specific elements of the emerging programme theories. Phase four Testing programme theories through interviews with youth workers, following consultation with young people, using vignettes to explore the relationship between specific programme theories. This relatively novel method of primary and secondary data integration within a realist synthesis will provide deeper insight in to young peoples lived experience of risk behaviour prevention programmes, while maintaining transparency in the process of programme theory development. Data analysisA realist logic of analysis will be used to align data from each phase with context mechanism outcome configurations or specific elements thereof. Substantive theory will then be sought to understand and explain the findings.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Ethics committee at Northumbria University, UK. Findings will be disseminated through knowledge exchange with stakeholders, publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, and formal and informal reports.

Uptake and use of a minimum data set (MDS) for older people living and dying in care homes in England: a realist review protocol

“…Realism is a methodological paradigm that sits between positivism (the world is real and can be observed directly) and constructivism (given that all we know has been processed through the human mind, we can never be sure exactly what reality is). 26 It is flexible to changes and embedded in a social reality that influences how a programme is implemented and how various actors in that reality respond to it. 21 Programmes like the MDS will always rely on human agency to affect change.…”

Oral health interventions for people living with mental disorders: protocol for a realist systematic review

“…A key feature of realist systematic reviews is the input of stakeholders throughout the review to support theory generation, knowledge translation, and impact [1,58]. Cooper and colleagues [61] used this combination of primary (stakeholder input) and secondary (literature searching and synthesis) data in their review of complex interventions to prevent adolescents from engaging in multiple risk behaviours. They argued that the incorporation of primary data in their review gave greater insights into causal factors that might not be identified within the literature and, importantly, provided opportunities for adolescents to have a strong voice in theory development.…”

Understanding what works, why and in what circumstances in hospice at home services for end-of-life care: Applying a realist logic of analysis to a systematically searched literature review

“…Evidence was coded deductively (to help evaluate potential propositions, and draw logical conclusions from emerging patterns in the literature), inductively (enabling new ideas and propositions to emerge from the evidence) and retroductively (identifying and exploring new patterns using theory to offer causal explanation). 32 Forty-nine papers were reviewed in total, of which 29 were accepted for inclusion, 13 papers were rejected as they did not go beyond superficial description or did not introduce any new theory areas that had already been developed and refined in the existing configurations. Where papers reported one study, these were grouped together into one set .…”