A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review

Implementation Science

Allan Best¹  Jennifer Bitz⁴  Cameron D Willis³  Jessie E Saul² 

[1]School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada

[2]North American Research & Analysis, Inc, 1016 11th Avenue NE, Faribault, MN 55021, USA

[3]School of Population Health, The University of Adelaide, Level 7, 178 North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia

[4]InSource Research Group, 4581 Anhalt Rd, Kelowna, BC V1W 1P7, Canada

关键词: Health policy;    Evidence synthesis;    Rapid review;    Realist review;   

Others  :  813367
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-8-103

 received in 2013-01-18, accepted in 2013-08-24,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

A realist synthesis attempts to provide policy makers with a transferable theory that suggests a certain program is more or less likely to work in certain respects, for particular subjects, in specific kinds of situations. Yet realist reviews can require considerable and sustained investment over time, which does not always suit the time-sensitive demands of many policy decisions. ‘Rapid Realist Review’ methodology (RRR) has been developed as a tool for applying a realist approach to a knowledge synthesis process in order to produce a product that is useful to policy makers in responding to time-sensitive and/or emerging issues, while preserving the core elements of realist methodology.

Methods

Using examples from completed RRRs, we describe key features of the RRR methodology, the resources required, and the strengths and limitations of the process. All aspects of an RRR are guided by both a local reference group, and a group of content experts. Involvement of knowledge users and external experts ensures both the usability of the review products, as well as their links to current practice.

Results

RRRs have proven useful in providing evidence for and making explicit what is known on a given topic, as well as articulating where knowledge gaps may exist. From the RRRs completed to date, findings broadly adhere to four (often overlapping) classifications: guiding rules for policy-making; knowledge quantification (i.e., the amount of literature available that identifies context, mechanisms, and outcomes for a given topic); understanding tensions/paradoxes in the evidence base; and, reinforcing or refuting beliefs and decisions taken.

Conclusions

‘Traditional’ realist reviews and RRRs have some key differences, which allow policy makers to apply each type of methodology strategically to maximize its utility within a particular local constellation of history, goals, resources, politics and environment. In particular, the RRR methodology is explicitly designed to engage knowledge users and review stakeholders to define the research questions, and to streamline the review process. In addition, results are presented with a focus on context-specific explanations for what works within a particular set of parameters rather than producing explanations that are potentially transferrable across contexts and populations. For policy makers faced with making difficult decisions in short time frames for which there is sufficient (if limited) published/research and practice-based evidence available, RRR provides a practical, outcomes-focused knowledge synthesis method.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Saul et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lavis J, et al.: Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10(Suppl 1):35-48.
• [2]Pawson R: Evidence-based policy: in search of a method. Evaluation 2002, 8(2):157-181.
• [3]Pawson R: Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE; 2006:196.
• [4]Pawson R: Evidence-based policy: the promise of realist synthesis. Evaluation 2002, 8:340-358.
• [5]Green LW: From research to “best practices” in other settings and populations. Am J Health Behav 2001, 25(3):165-178.
• [6]Greenhalgh T, et al.: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82(4):581-629.
• [7]Astbury B, Leeuw F: Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 2010, 31:363-381.
• [8]Pawson R, et al.: Realist review–a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10(Suppl 1):21-34.
• [9]Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H: Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci 2010, 5:56. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Watt A, et al.: Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg 2008, 78(11):1037-1040.
• [11]Riley B, Norman C, Best A: Knowledge integration in public health: a rapid review using systems thinking. Evidence and Policy 2012, 8:417-431.
• [12]Khangura S, et al.: Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev 2012, 1(1):10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Theory and Practice 2005, 8(1):19-32.
• [14]Wong G, et al.: RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med 2013, 11:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Lavis JN, et al.: Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med 2012, 9(3):e1001186.
• [16]Keown K, Van Eerd D, Irvin E: Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2008, 28(2):67-72.
• [17]Van de Ven AH, Johnson PE: Knowledge for theory and practice. Acad Manage Rev 2006, 31:802-821.
• [18]Van de Ven AH: Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
• [19]Merton RK: On theoretical sociology; five essays, old and new. A free press paperback. New York: Free Press; 1967:180.