Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: There is increasing interest in the use of theory and logic models to inform systematic reviews of complex interventions. However, there is limited methodological guidance as to how theory can be integrated into systematic reviews.
Objectives: To describe the use of causal mapping as a theory-based framework for a systematic review relating to crime, fear of crime, health and the built environment.
Methods: Our causal map was intended to provide a framework for an evidence synthesis project including systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness and of qualitative evidence. We utilised a non-systematic iterative method to locate relevant theoretical and empirical literature, and synthesized findings and theories narratively using the emergent conceptual framework, in consultation with the review Advisory Group. The map was used to inform the development of methods for the systematic reviews.
Results: The causal map included a wide range of factors and drew on theory and data in several different areas. It provided an outline structure of both the conceptual relationships of key review terms and their potential causal interactions. It also helped to identify potential pathways of intervention effectiveness; to clarify methodological issues in the primary evidence; and to situate the systematic review findings within a broader context. Purely theoretical literature was of less value than empirical observational and qualitative evidence, although the mapping methodology may not be well suited to the integration of insights from qualitative research. The validity of the mapping process is limited by the non-systematic methods; however, there are several reasons why full systematic review methods may not be appropriate for causal mapping.
Conclusions: Causal mapping may be a valuable tool in systematic reviews of complex interventions. However, there remain a number of questions about appropriate methodologies for collecting and synthesizing theoretical and empirical literature for causal maps.
Objectives: To describe the use of causal mapping as a theory-based framework for a systematic review relating to crime, fear of crime, health and the built environment.
Methods: Our causal map was intended to provide a framework for an evidence synthesis project including systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness and of qualitative evidence. We utilised a non-systematic iterative method to locate relevant theoretical and empirical literature, and synthesized findings and theories narratively using the emergent conceptual framework, in consultation with the review Advisory Group. The map was used to inform the development of methods for the systematic reviews.
Results: The causal map included a wide range of factors and drew on theory and data in several different areas. It provided an outline structure of both the conceptual relationships of key review terms and their potential causal interactions. It also helped to identify potential pathways of intervention effectiveness; to clarify methodological issues in the primary evidence; and to situate the systematic review findings within a broader context. Purely theoretical literature was of less value than empirical observational and qualitative evidence, although the mapping methodology may not be well suited to the integration of insights from qualitative research. The validity of the mapping process is limited by the non-systematic methods; however, there are several reasons why full systematic review methods may not be appropriate for causal mapping.
Conclusions: Causal mapping may be a valuable tool in systematic reviews of complex interventions. However, there remain a number of questions about appropriate methodologies for collecting and synthesizing theoretical and empirical literature for causal maps.