Telecare acceptance as sticky entrapment: A realist review

Berge, Mari S.

doi:10.4017/gt.2016.15.2.023.00

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(95 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We included a total of 35 studies in our sample . Most papers reported a single realist review (27 of 35).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eight reviews in our sample reported such an approach purposively selecting key (as defined by the review teams) relevant documents as starting points for identifying further documents of interest via citation searching. Berge reported carrying out three separate searches in an iterative attempt to gradually refine their literature base to match the focus of the research question . Berge's approach combined elements of comprehensive sampling, with respect to the number of sources searched, with a subsequent purposive stage when refining the literature base.Theoretical sample. One realist review cites theoretical sampling, stating that the team achieved “theoretical saturation” from their initial comprehensive search .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty‐six of the 31 health reviews reported searching nonhealth discipline‐specific databases (n = 5) such as ASSIA, Engineering Village, and ERIC; multidisciplinary databases (n = 7) such as Web of Knowledge, or both (n = 14). Three health reviews did not search any health discipline databases, but relied on multidisciplinary databases for health studies and, presumably, relevant studies from other disciplines. Five health reviews searched only health databases …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty‐one reviews did not report using limits (other than date limits). A single limit was reported in 12 reviews, and two reviews reported multiple limits . English language was the search limit used most frequently (n = 12).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We observed a comparable lack of description of how searches had been used in connection with identification of midrange theories. In some cases, the review team seems to have centered on a specific theory early in the process and then to use this as a “lens” through which to explore the collected data . In other cases, the review team gathered together a host of frameworks, from different disciplines and contexts, and explored the utility of each .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The “realist search”: A systematic scoping review of current practice and reporting

Booth

Briscoe

Wright

2019

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The requirement for literature searches that identify studies for inclusion in systematic reviews should be systematic, explicit, and reproducible extends, at least by implication, to other types of literature review. However, realist reviews commonly require literature searches that challenge systematic reporting; searches are iterative and involve multiple search strategies and approaches. Notwithstanding these challenges, reporting of the "realist search" can be structured to be transparent and to facilitate identification of innovative retrieval practices. Our six-component search framework consolidates and extends the structure advanced by Pawson, one of the originators of realist review: formulating the question, conducting the background search, searching for program theory, searching for empirical studies, searching to refine program theory and identifying relevant mid-range theory, and documenting and reporting the search process. This study reviews reports of search methods in 34 realist reviews published within the calendar year of 2016. Data from all eligible reviews were extracted from the search framework. Realist search reports poorly differentiate between the different search components. Review teams often conduct a single "big bang" multipurpose search to fulfill multiple functions within the review. However, it is acknowledged that realist searches are likely to be iterative and responsive to emergent data. Overall, the search for empirical studies appears most comprehensive in conduct and reporting detail. In contrast, searches to identify and refine program theory are poorly conducted, if at all, and poorly reported. Use of this framework offers greater transparency in conduct and reporting while preserving flexibility and methodological innovation. K E Y W O R D S literature searches, realist synthesis, reporting standards Highlights What is already knownRealist syntheses are becoming increasingly prevalent but methods for searching ("realist searches") are poorly specified. What is newRealist searches require iterative methods that use different search approaches to support different components of the realist synthesis process.This audit of descriptions of search components from published realist syntheses for a single calendar year reveals examples of consensus on candidate approaches for retrieval and reporting as well as instances of genuine innovation. Potential impact for RSM readers outside the authors' fieldAs realist syntheses start to populate subject fields where the systematic review convention has not previously gained traction it will be helpful for researchers in those fields to be exposed to information retrieval methods that can offer a systematic approach to study identification. This paper offers a framework for planning, reporting and evaluating future realist searches from across multiple subject fields in an ongoing quest to improve standards of conduct and reporting. BOOTH ET AL. 15 "Realist Search"a preferred label that describes all procedures used to identify doc...

show abstract

“…We included a total of 35 studies in our sample . Most papers reported a single realist review (27 of 35).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%