RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

Wong, Geoff; Greenhalgh, Trisha; Westhorp, Gill; Buckingham, Jeanette; Pawson, Ray

doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-20

Cited by 435 publications

(423 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

365

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It may not give us any insight into the rationale and epistemological understanding of the authors. The current trend to develop RGs for different types of meta-synthesis approaches, as opposed to, for example, the more general Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research statement (Tong, Flemming, McInnes, Oliver, & Craig, 2012), confirms the trend toward producing design-specific guidelines (Wong, Greenhalgh, Westhorp, Buckingham, & Pawson, 2014) or even guidelines on methodological parts in a report, such as how to report on a literature search or develop an abstract (Booth, 2004;Hopewell et al, 2008). We believe this is a worthwhile endeavor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Exploring the Potential for a Consolidated Standard for Reporting Guidelines for Qualitative Research

Hannes

Heyvaert

Slegers

et al. 2015

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Consolidating a standard for reporting qualitative research remains a challenging endeavor, given the variety of different paradigms that steer qualitative research as well as the broad range of designs, and techniques for data collection and analysis that one could opt for when conducting qualitative research. Method: A total of 18 experts in qualitative research participated in an argument Delphi approach to explore the arguments that would plead for or against the development and use of reporting guidelines (RGs) for qualitative research and to generate opinions on what may need to be considered in the further development or further refinement of RGs for qualitative research.Findings: The potential to increase quality and accountability of qualitative research was identified as one of the core benefits of RGs for different target groups, including students. Experts in our pilot study seem to resist a fixed, extensive list of criteria. They emphasize the importance of flexibility in developing and applying such criteria. Clear-cut RGs may restrict the publication of reports on unusual, innovative, or emerging research approaches.Conclusions: RGs should not be used as a substitute for proper training in qualitative research methods and should not be applied rigidly. Experts feel more comfortable with RGs that allow for an adaptation of criteria, to create a better fit for purpose. The variety in viewpoints between experts for the majority of the topics will most likely complicate future consolidation processes. Design specific RGs should be considered to allow developers to stay true to their own epistemological principles and those of their potential users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Exploring the Potential for a Consolidated Standard for Reporting Guidelines for Qualitative Research

Hannes

Heyvaert

Slegers

et al. 2015

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…43 Our MNM review provides a preliminary map of current mental health care planning and co-ordination by addressing four points: (1) how the topic is conceptualised in different research traditions; (2) what the key theories are; (3) what the preferred study designs and approaches are; and (4) what the main empirical findings are. The methods employed are described in Chapter 3 where we also bring together our broad narrative synthesis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-national comparative mixed-methods case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and co-ordination: Collaborative Care Planning Project (COCAPP)

Simpson

Hannigan

Coffey

et al. 2016

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundConcerns about fragmented community mental health care have led to the development of the care programme approach in England and care and treatment planning in Wales. These systems require those people receiving mental health services to have a care co-ordinator, a written care plan and regular reviews of their care. Care planning and co-ordination should be recovery-focused and personalised, with people taking more control over their own support and treatment.Objective(s)We aimed to obtain the views and experiences of various stakeholders involved in community mental health care; to identify factors that facilitated, or acted as barriers to, personalised, collaborative and recovery-focused care planning and co-ordination; and to make suggestions for future research.DesignA cross-national comparative mixed-methods study involving six NHS sites in England and Wales, including a meta-narrative synthesis of relevant policies and literature; a survey of recovery, empowerment and therapeutic relationships in service users (n = 449) and recovery in care co-ordinators (n = 201); embedded case studies involving interviews with service providers, service users and carers (n = 117); and a review of care plans (n = 33).Review methodsA meta-narrative mapping method.ResultsQuantitative and qualitative data were analysed within and across sites using inferential statistics, correlations and the framework method. Our study found significant differences for scores on therapeutic relationships related to positive collaboration and clinician input. We also found significant differences between sites on recovery scores for care co-ordinators related to diversity of treatment options and life goals. This suggests that perceptions relating to how recovery-focused care planning works in practice are variable across sites. Interviews found great variance in the experiences of care planning and the understanding of recovery and personalisation within and across sites, with some differences between England and Wales. Care plans were seen as largely irrelevant by service users, who rarely consulted them. Care co-ordinators saw them as both useful records and also an inflexible administrative burden that restricted time with service users. Service users valued their relationships with care co-ordinators and saw this as being central to their recovery. Carers reported varying levels of involvement in care planning. Risk was a significant concern for workers but this appeared to be rarely discussed with service users, who were often unaware of the content of risk assessments.LimitationsLimitations include a relatively low response rate of between 9% and 19% for the survey and a moderate level of missing data on one measure. For the interviews, there may have been an element of self-selection or inherent biases that were not immediately apparent to the researchers.ConclusionsThe administrative elements of care co-ordination reduce opportunities for recovery-focused and personalised work. There were few shared understandings of recovery, which may limit shared goals. Conversations on risk appeared to be neglected and assessments kept from service users. A reluctance to engage in dialogue about risk management may work against opportunities for positive risk-taking as part of recovery-focused work.Future workResearch should be commissioned to investigate innovative approaches to maximising staff contact time with service users and carers; enabling shared decision-making in risk assessments; and promoting training designed to enable personalised, recovery-focused care co-ordination.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

“…A realist review considers the “generative causality,” in which particular mechanisms (for example, peer influence) produce particular outcomes (for example, smoking cessation) in some circumstances (for example, when societal disapproval of smoking is high) but not others (for example, in cultures where smoking is still widely viewed as a mark of sophistication) 27. A meta‐narrative review maps the storyline of a research tradition over time 28. Shifting the focus away from comparing findings of studies published at different times, it orients critical reflection to discern how ideas have waxed and waned within different scholarly communities at different points in the development of thinking (see an early example of how the term “diffusion of innovations” was differently defined and explored in different academic disciplines29).…”

Section: What Is a Narrative Review?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because hermeneutic, realist and meta‐narrative reviews have explicit methodologies and accepted standards and criteria for judging their quality,14, 27, 28 a minority of scholars include such approaches within the (broadly defined) category of systematic reviews. However, we have had experience of journal editors rejecting reviews based on these techniques on the grounds that they were “not systematic”.…”

Section: What Is a Narrative Review?mentioning

confidence: 99%