What Really Matters for Supervision Training Workshops? A Realist Evaluation

Nguyen, Van N.B.; Rees, Charlotte E.; Ottrey, Ella; Davis, Corinne; Pope, Kirsty; Lee, Sarah; Waller, Susan; Palermo, Claire

doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004686

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, we have written this current Focus on Research Methods paper, primarily for those relatively new to realist research, based on our knowledge of the methodology literature, as well as our own experience of realist and qualitative interviewing. [10][11][12] We hope this paper helps evaluators to conduct and report realist interviews optimally, as well as reviewers and editors to critically appraise realist interviews more easily. See Box 3 for an overview of this paper's illustrative cases.…”

Section: Rameses IImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Purposive and theoretical sampling is key for realist interviews, with participants selected based on their ability to contribute to the gleaning, refining and/or consolidation of programme theory. 5,6,17,27,29 Furthermore, participant diversity is important to help shed more fulsome light on programme theory, with programme practitioners (e.g., programme designers and programme facilitators) typically being interviewed first (often for theory gleaning purposes), and then latterly programme users (e.g., programme participants) being interviewed, 5,6,29 as was the case in Nguyen et al 10 If programme theory suggests that programmes might work differently for different stakeholders (e.g., medicine versus nursing practitioners) and/or from different organisational settings (e.g., primary versus secondary care), then those sub-groups of interest should inform ongoing sampling. 5,6 No suggested minimum number of realist interviews exists.…”

Section: Sampling/samplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Realist evaluation of supervision training 10,11 Realist evaluation of faculty development 12 Interview schedules (available on request)…”

Section: Critical Analysis Of Realist Interviewing In Hpermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, nine studies also mentioned some form of thematic analysis, whereby contexts, mechanisms and outcomes were conceptualised as themes, or the steps in framework analysis (a form of thematic analysis) were employed to organise the realist configurational analyses. Finally, only five studies [10][11][12]34,40 reported meeting the reporting standards for realist evaluations. 18 In conclusion, we identified several limitations in published realist interview studies within the HPER field, meaning that reporting standards for realist evaluations were sometimes unmet.…”

Section: Interviewermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although qualitative research interviewing is well‐articulated in the HPER literature, 7–9 realist interviewing is not, despite its increasing use as a realist evaluation data collection method (see Table 1 later). Therefore, we have written this current Focus on Research Methods paper, primarily for those relatively new to realist research, based on our knowledge of the methodology literature, as well as our own experience of realist and qualitative interviewing 10–12 . We hope this paper helps evaluators to conduct and report realist interviews optimally, as well as reviewers and editors to critically appraise realist interviews more easily.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A roadmap to realist interviews in health professions education research: Recommendations based on a critical analysis

Rees,

Davis,

Nguyen

et al. 2023

Medical Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ContextRealist evaluation is increasingly employed in health professions education research (HPER) because it can unpack the extent to which complex educational interventions work (or not), for whom under what circumstances and how. While realist evaluation is not wedded to particular methods, realist interviews are commonly the primary, if not only, data collection method in realist evaluations. While qualitative interviewing from an interpretivist standpoint has been well‐articulated in the HPER literature, realist interviewing differs substantially. The former elicits participants' views and experiences of a topic of inquiry, whereas realist interviewing focuses on building, testing and/or refining programme theory. Therefore, this article aims to help readers better understand, conduct, report and critique realist interviews as part of realist evaluations.MethodsIn this paper, we describe what realist approaches are, what realist interviewing is and why realist interviewing matters. We outline five stages to realist interviewing (developing initial programme theory, realist sampling/samples, the interview itself, realist analysis and reporting realist interviews), drawing on two illustrative cases from our own realist evaluations employing interviewing to bring theory to life. We provide a critical analysis of 12 realist evaluations employing interviewing in the HPER literature. Alongside reporting standards, and our own realist interviewing experiences, this critical analysis of published articles serves to foreground our recommendations for realist interviewing.ConclusionsWe encourage HPE researchers to consider realist interviews as part of realist evaluations of complex interventions. Our critical analysis reveals that realist interviews can provide unique insights into HPE, but authors now need to report their sampling approach, type of interviewing and interview questions more explicitly. Studies should also more explicitly draw on existing realist interviewing literature and follow reporting guidelines for realist evaluations. We hope this paper provides a useful roadmap to conducting, reporting and critically appraising realist interviews in HPER.

show abstract

Section: Rameses IImentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sampling/samplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Realist evaluation of supervision training 10,11 Realist evaluation of faculty development 12 Interview schedules (available on request)…”

Section: Critical Analysis Of Realist Interviewing In Hpermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interviewermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A roadmap to realist interviews in health professions education research: Recommendations based on a critical analysis

Rees,

Davis,

Nguyen

et al. 2023

Medical Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Realist analysis of qualitative data in health professions education research

Rees,

Proctor,

Nguyen

et al. 2024

Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundQualitative realist analysis is gaining in popularity in health professions education research (HPER) as part of theory‐driven program evaluation. Although realist approaches such as syntheses and evaluations typically advocate mixed methods, qualitative data dominate currently. Various forms of qualitative analysis have been articulated in HPER, yet realist analysis has not. Although realist analysis is interpretive, it moves beyond description to explain generative causation employing retroductive theorising. Ultimately, it attempts to build and/or ‘test’ (confirm, refute or refine) theory about how, why, for whom, when and to what extent programs work using the context‐mechanism‐outcome configuration (CMOC) heuristic. This paper aims to help readers better critique, conduct and report qualitative realist analysis.Realist Analysis MethodsWe describe four fundamentals of qualitative realist analysis: (1) simultaneous data collection/analysis; (2) retroductive theorising; (3) configurational analysis (involving iterative phases of identifying CMOCs, synthesising CMOCs into demi‐regularities and translating demi‐regularities into program theory); and (4) realist analysis quality (relevance, rigour, richness). Next, we provide a critical analysis of realist analyses employed in 15 HPER outputs—three evaluations and 12 syntheses. Finally, drawing on our understandings of realist literature and our experiences of conducting qualitative realist analysis (both evaluations and syntheses), we articulate three common analysis challenges (coding, consolidation and mapping) and strategies to mitigate these challenges (teamwork, reflexivity and consultation, use of data analysis software and graphical representations of program theory).ConclusionsBased on our critical analysis of the literature and realist analysis experiences, we encourage researchers, peer reviewers and readers to better understand qualitative realist analysis fundamentals. Realist analysts should draw on relevant realist reporting standards and literature on realist analysis to improve the quality and reporting of realist analysis. Through better understanding the common challenges and mitigation strategies for realist analysis, we can collectively improve the quality of realist analysis in HPER.

show abstract

Comparison of medical students' considerations in choosing a specialty: 2020 vs. 2009/10

Schroeder,

Shacham,

Amar

et al. 2024

Hum Resour Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Workforce shortage in healthcare and particularly in physicians poses a threat to healthcare delivery and its quality. In comparison to other OECD countries, Israel currently has a small number of medical graduates relative to its number of physicians, naturally emphasizing the importance of ensuring that this population chooses to remain in medicine. Understanding what is most important to medical students can help improve working conditions in residency. Such information is particularly needed to facilitate policy planning that will encourage the next generation of physicians to specialize in medical fields that are experiencing shortages. We hypothesized that between 2009/2010 and 2020, there were significant changes in medical students' preferences regarding their considerations for choosing a medical specialty. Methods We compared cross-sectional data from questionnaire-based surveys of 5th year medical students performed in 2009–2010 and 2020 at two Israeli universities. Results Of the 335 medical students who responded (237 and 98 in 2009/2010 and 2020, respectively) those in 2020 were 2.26 less likely vs. those in 2009/2010, to choose a residency for its high-paying potential (P < 0.05), and had significantly more interest in residencies with greater teaching opportunity (98.8% vs 82.9%, P < 0.05), increased responsibility and chances to make clinical decisions on their own (67.9% vs 51.6%, P < 0.05). Criteria important to both the 2009/2010 and 2020 students were choosing a bedside specialty (70.2%vs 67.9%, NS), and an interesting and challenging specialty (95.2%v s 91.3%, NS). Conclusions These results partially supported our hypothesis that medical students' preferences have changed over the years, though there are fundamental factors that apparently reflect medical students’ nature that do not change over time.

show abstract

What Really Matters for Supervision Training Workshops? A Realist Evaluation

Cited by 3 publications

References 48 publications

A roadmap to realist interviews in health professions education research: Recommendations based on a critical analysis

A roadmap to realist interviews in health professions education research: Recommendations based on a critical analysis

Realist analysis of qualitative data in health professions education research

Comparison of medical students' considerations in choosing a specialty: 2020 vs. 2009/10

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About