Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: A realist review is an interpretive theory-driven narrative summary of findings from primary studies of complex social interventions. Such a review provides an explanatory analysis aimed at discerning what works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects, and how.
Objectives: To describe, with regard to realist review, how much has been done, in what areas, and what are the methodological characteristics of published realist reviews.
Methods: We used a systematic mapping review approach, which captures and describes the literature in one specific field of study. We conducted systematic searches in seven international databases from January 2004 to January 2015, examined relevant websites and listserves, and contacted experts. Study selection was performed by two reviewers independently and data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. For each included review, details of the review characteristics and methodological process were extracted (53 variables), and descriptive analyses were performed.
Results: We included 54 realist reviews (73 publications), conducted primarily by British researchers. Three-quarters of the titles identified the study as a realist review or realist synthesis. About half (46%) of the reviews explained the selection and appraisal of documents, and a quarter (24%) explained the data extraction process. Twenty-nine of the reviews (54%) used a data extraction form. The processes of selecting documents, appraisal of evidence, and data extraction were rarely done in duplicate (13% to 22%). About half (54%) provided a document flow diagram and 39% provided information on the characteristics of the documents included in the review. The range of documents included was six to 276 (it was unclear in five).
Conclusions: In ten years, there has been an exponential growth of published realist reviews from a broad spectrum of health and related research areas. The reviews vary greatly in terms of purpose, methodological rigor, and quality of reporting. There may be a need for methodological standardization to ensure the utility and strength of its evidence.
Objectives: To describe, with regard to realist review, how much has been done, in what areas, and what are the methodological characteristics of published realist reviews.
Methods: We used a systematic mapping review approach, which captures and describes the literature in one specific field of study. We conducted systematic searches in seven international databases from January 2004 to January 2015, examined relevant websites and listserves, and contacted experts. Study selection was performed by two reviewers independently and data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. For each included review, details of the review characteristics and methodological process were extracted (53 variables), and descriptive analyses were performed.
Results: We included 54 realist reviews (73 publications), conducted primarily by British researchers. Three-quarters of the titles identified the study as a realist review or realist synthesis. About half (46%) of the reviews explained the selection and appraisal of documents, and a quarter (24%) explained the data extraction process. Twenty-nine of the reviews (54%) used a data extraction form. The processes of selecting documents, appraisal of evidence, and data extraction were rarely done in duplicate (13% to 22%). About half (54%) provided a document flow diagram and 39% provided information on the characteristics of the documents included in the review. The range of documents included was six to 276 (it was unclear in five).
Conclusions: In ten years, there has been an exponential growth of published realist reviews from a broad spectrum of health and related research areas. The reviews vary greatly in terms of purpose, methodological rigor, and quality of reporting. There may be a need for methodological standardization to ensure the utility and strength of its evidence.