Article type
Abstract
Background: Realist review was first proposed by Pawson et al. in 2005, to understand what a complex social intervention works, for whom, under what circumstances and how. Studies of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) need not only need answer the question of effective intervention or effect size, but also explain the theory of intervention iteratively and integratively, which is consistent with the aim of realist review.
Objectives: To investigate the application of realist review in TCM, and understand how the realist review could be applied and the potential challenges.
Methods: The PUBMED and CNKI were searched to identify the realist review studies focused on TCM intervention. The titles and abstracts were screened independently, then the full text were screened for including. Any conflicts will be solved with the third researchers. Information relating to the application of realist review in TCM and the challenges during conduction will be extracted and summarized narratively.
Results: No studies of realist review on TCM intervention were identified, but two articles stated that the realist review was suitable for addressing TCM issue. The realist review could be applied in the several aspects of TCM: 1) for clinical questions refers to not only the effectiveness of TCM, but also the psychology, social context, and environment, the realist review could be designed to explain how the complex intervention works in a specific context; 2) for the quantitative evidence and qualitative evidence both need to be included to explore TCM intervention comprehensively, the realist review can present the characteristics of humanities health better. The potential challenges may encounter when applied in TCM: 1) as the realist review is a theory-driven methods, there are a lot of TCM classics produced the theory of TCM, so the searching, extraction, and application of these TCM classics databases should be considered and integrated; 2) the views of stakeholders need be considered in the early stage of study, but the current TCM evidence involved few stakeholders.
Conclusions: The realist review could be applied to explain the theory of TCM intervention, but the formation process of theory and integration of views from stakeholders were challenging.
Objectives: To investigate the application of realist review in TCM, and understand how the realist review could be applied and the potential challenges.
Methods: The PUBMED and CNKI were searched to identify the realist review studies focused on TCM intervention. The titles and abstracts were screened independently, then the full text were screened for including. Any conflicts will be solved with the third researchers. Information relating to the application of realist review in TCM and the challenges during conduction will be extracted and summarized narratively.
Results: No studies of realist review on TCM intervention were identified, but two articles stated that the realist review was suitable for addressing TCM issue. The realist review could be applied in the several aspects of TCM: 1) for clinical questions refers to not only the effectiveness of TCM, but also the psychology, social context, and environment, the realist review could be designed to explain how the complex intervention works in a specific context; 2) for the quantitative evidence and qualitative evidence both need to be included to explore TCM intervention comprehensively, the realist review can present the characteristics of humanities health better. The potential challenges may encounter when applied in TCM: 1) as the realist review is a theory-driven methods, there are a lot of TCM classics produced the theory of TCM, so the searching, extraction, and application of these TCM classics databases should be considered and integrated; 2) the views of stakeholders need be considered in the early stage of study, but the current TCM evidence involved few stakeholders.
Conclusions: The realist review could be applied to explain the theory of TCM intervention, but the formation process of theory and integration of views from stakeholders were challenging.