2022
DOI: 10.1080/1750984x.2021.1969674
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Realist review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
70
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
0
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“… 31 To this end, our study selection was purposive, meaning that the goal was not to represent the existing evidence base in its entirety, but rather only include what the authors deemed relevant for expanding, refuting or refining the initial theories. 32 Initial screening of studies based on title, abstract and keywords took place simultaneously with the searches. We also considered grey literature reporting on impact evaluations, process evaluations, action research, documentary analysis, administrative records, surveys, legislative analysis, conceptual critique, personal testimony thought pieces and commentaries.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 31 To this end, our study selection was purposive, meaning that the goal was not to represent the existing evidence base in its entirety, but rather only include what the authors deemed relevant for expanding, refuting or refining the initial theories. 32 Initial screening of studies based on title, abstract and keywords took place simultaneously with the searches. We also considered grey literature reporting on impact evaluations, process evaluations, action research, documentary analysis, administrative records, surveys, legislative analysis, conceptual critique, personal testimony thought pieces and commentaries.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We followed the six-step framework recently published by Hunter et al [16] and the realist review methodological guidance provided by the RAMESES project [6]. Originally applied to a realist review of socially complex interventions in the domain of sports psychology, Hunter et al provide a clear overview of six stages of the review process.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Originally applied to a realist review of socially complex interventions in the domain of sports psychology, Hunter et al provide a clear overview of six stages of the review process. Their framework takes the RAMESES guidance into account and contributes to further clarifying methodological guidance and enhancing transparency of the application of the method [16].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their insights make a substantive contribution to health service innovation because, by taking context into account, they are potentially 'transferable'-producing insights relevant to a wide range of settings and geographical contexts. 70 Our proposed realist synthesis will be conducted in four iterative phases (see below). The review will follow the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards (RAMESES) quality procedures 69 and, subsequently, will comply with RAMESES reporting guidance.…”
Section: Philosophy and Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%