Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses Research Articles

43 Management of acute low back pain in the ED: a systematic review

Study objectiveThere is no consensus on the management of low back pain in the ED and evidence suggests that these patients are likely to receive unwarranted imaging and inappropriate opioid...

Can Self-Compassion Promote Healthcare Provider Well-Being and Compassionate Care to Others? Results of a Systematic Review.

This meta-narrative review, conducted according to the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) standards, critically examines the construct of self-compassion to determine if it is an accurate target variable to mitigate work-related stress and promote compassionate caregiving in healthcare providers. PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies were coded as referring to: (1) conceptualisation of self-compassion; (2) measures of self-compassion; (3) self-compassion and affect; and (4) self-compassion interventions. A narrative approach was used to evaluate self-compassion as a paradigm. Sixty-nine studies were included. The construct of self-compassion in healthcare has significant limitations. Self-compassion has been related to the definition of compassion, but includes limited facets of compassion and adds elements of uncompassionate behavior. Empirical studies use the Self-Compassion Scale, which is criticised for its psychometric and theoretical validity. Therapeutic interventions purported to cultivate self-compassion may have a broader effect on general affective states. An alleged outcome of self-compassion is compassionate care; however, we found no studies that included patient reports on this primary outcome. We critically examine and delineate self-compassion in healthcare providers as a composite of common facets of self-care, healthy self-attitude, and self-awareness rather than a construct in and of itself.

Realist synthesis of educational interventions to improve nutrition care competencies and delivery by doctors and other healthcare professionals

ObjectiveTo determine what, how, for whom, why, and in what circumstances educational interventions improve the delivery of nutrition care by doctors and other healthcare professionals work.DesignRealist synthesis following a published...

Confidentiality, anonymity and amnesty for midwives in distress seeking online support - Ethical?

Midwife health is intrinsically linked to the quality of safe patient care. To ensure safe patient care, there is a need to deliver emotional support to midwives. One option that midwives may turn to may be a confidential online intervention, instead of localised, face-to-face support. Following the Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards publication standards, this realist synthesis approach explores the ethical considerations in permitting confidentiality, anonymity and amnesty in online interventions to support midwives in work-related psychological distress. An iterative search methodology was used to select nine papers for review. To assimilate information, papers were examined for ideas relating to ethical dimensions of online interventions to support midwives in work-related psychological distress. This review takes a narrative approach. Online interventions can support the development of insight, help seeking and open discussion. Additionally, Internet support groups can become morally persuasive in nature. Anonymity and confidentiality are both effective and therapeutic features of online interventions when used in collaboration with effective online moderation. Yet, ethical dilemmas remain where users cannot be identified. Confidentiality and anonymity remain key components of successful online interventions. However, sanctioning the corollary component of amnesty may provoke moral discomfort for those seeking immediate accountability. For others, amnesty is seen as essential for open disclosure and help seeking. Ultimately, the needs of midwives must be balanced with the requirement to protect the public and the professional reputation of midwifery. In supporting midwives online, the principles of anonymity, confidentiality and amnesty may evoke some resistance on ethical grounds. However, without offering identity protection, it may not be possible to create effective online support services for midwives. The authors of this article argue that the principles of confidentiality, anonymity and amnesty should be upheld in the pursuit of the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations.

Writing therapy to improve physical or mental health can take many forms. The most researched model of therapeutic writing (TW) is unfacilitated, individual expressive writing (written emotional disclosure). Facilitated writing activities are less widely researched. Databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, were searched from inception to March 2013 (updated January 2015). Four TW practitioners provided expert advice. Study procedures were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies were included. Quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Unfacilitated and facilitated TW studies were analysed separately under International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision chapter headings. Meta-analyses were performed where possible using RevMan version 5.2.6 (RevMan 2012, The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Costs were estimated from a UK NHS perspective and three cost-consequence case studies were prepared. Realist synthesis followed Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines. To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TW for people with long-term conditions (LTCs) compared with no writing, or other controls, reporting any relevant clinical outcomes. To conduct a realist synthesis to understand how TW might work, and for whom. From 14,658 unique citations, 284 full-text papers were reviewed and 64 studies (59 RCTs) were included in the final effectiveness reviews. Five studies examined facilitated TW; these were extremely heterogeneous with unclear or high risk of bias but suggested that facilitated TW interventions may be beneficial in individual LTCs. Unfacilitated expressive writing was examined in 59 studies of variable or unreported quality. Overall, there was very little or no evidence of any benefit reported in the following conditions (number of studies): human immunodeficiency virus (six); breast cancer (eight); gynaecological and genitourinary cancers (five); mental health (five); asthma (four); psoriasis (three); and chronic pain (four). In inflammatory arthropathies (six) there was a reduction in disease severity [n = 191, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.96 to -0.26] in the short term on meta-analysis of four studies. For all other LTCs there were either no data, or sparse data with no or inconsistent, evidence of benefit. Meta-analyses conducted across all of the LTCs provided no evidence that unfacilitated emotional writing had any effect on depression at short- (n = 1563, SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.17, substantial heterogeneity) or long-term (n = 778, SMD -0.04 95% CI -0.18 to 0.10, little heterogeneity) follow-up, or on anxiety, physiological or biomarker-based outcomes. One study reported costs, no studies reported cost-effectiveness and 12 studies reported resource use; and meta-analysis suggested reduced medication use but no impact on health centre visits. Estimated costs of intervention were low, but there was insufficient evidence to judge cost-effectiveness. Realist synthesis findings suggested that facilitated TW is a complex intervention and group interaction contributes to the perception of benefit. It was unclear from the available data who might benefit most from facilitated TW. Difficulties with developing realist synthesis programme theory meant that mechanisms operating during TW remain obscure. Overall, there is little evidence to support the therapeutic effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of unfacilitated expressive writing interventions in people with LTCs. Further research focused on facilitated TW in people with LTCs could be informative. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003343. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Local food environment interventions to improve healthy food choice in adults: a systematic review and realist synthesis protocol

IntroductionLocal food environments have been linked with dietary intake and obesity in adults. However, overall evidence remains mixed with calls for increased theoretical and conceptual clarity related to how availability...

A realist review of educational interventions to improve the delivery of nutrition care by doctors and future doctors.

BackgroundDietary interventions are considered an important aspect of clinical practice, more so in the face of the rising prevalence of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases globally. Routinely, most doctors do not provide such intervention to their patients, and several barriers, present during both training and clinical practice, have been identified. Educational interventions to improve nutrition care competencies and delivery have been implemented but with variable success, probably, due to the complex nature of such interventions. Using traditional methods only to investigate whether interventions are effective or not could not provide appropriate lessons. It is therefore pertinent to conduct a realist review that investigates how the interventions work. This realist review aims at determining what sort of educational interventions work, how, for whom, and in what circumstances, to improve the delivery of nutrition care by doctors and future doctors.Methods/designThis realist review will be conducted according to Pawson’s five practical steps for conducting a realist review: (1) clarifying the scope of the review, (2) determining the search strategy, including adopting broad inclusion/exclusion criteria and purposive snowballing techniques, (3) ensuring proper article selection and study quality assessment using multiple methods, (4) extracting and organising data through the process of note taking, annotation and conceptualization and (5) synthesising the evidence and drawing conclusions through a process of reasoning. This realist review protocol has not been registered in any database before now.DiscussionFindings will be reported according to the publication criteria outlined by the realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis (RAMESES) group.

Research protocol: a realist synthesis of cross-border patient mobility from low-income and middle-income countries

IntroductionPeople are increasingly mobile for numerous reasons, including healthcare. Patient mobility has vast implications for individuals, communities and whole populations and yet, to date, research on patient mobility has been...

Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards) project

BackgroundThere is growing interest in theory-driven, qualitative and mixed-method approaches to systematic review, such as realist and meta-narrative review. These approaches offer the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas. However, the quality of such reviews can be difficult to assess.ObjectivesThe aim of this project was to produce methodological guidance, publication standards and training resources for those seeking to undertake realist and/or meta-narrative reviews.Methods/designWe (1) collated and summarised existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist and meta-narrative systematic reviews; (2) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published and in-progress reviews, thereby identifying how rigour may have been lost and how existing methods could be improved; (3) used an online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts from academia and policy, to produce a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (4) produced training materials with learning objectives linked to these steps; (5) refined these standards and training materials prospectively on real reviews in progress, capturing methodological and other challenges as they arose; (6) synthesised expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into more definitive guidance and standards; and (7) disseminated outputs to audiences in academia and policy.ResultsAn important element of this study was the establishment of an e-mail mailing list to bring together researches in the field (www.jiscmail.ac.uk/RAMESES). Our literature review identified 35 and nine realist and meta-narrative reviews respectively. Analysis and discussion within the project team produced a summary of the published literature, and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 37 and 33 members (for realist and meta-narrative reviews respectively). Within three rounds this panel had reached a consensus on 19 (realist) and 20 (meta-narrative) key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 90% and 91% respectively. The Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards for realist syntheses and meta-narrative reviews were published in open-access journals and quickly became highly accessed. The RAMESES quality standards and training materials drew together the following sources of data: (1) personal expertise as researchers and trainers; (2) data from the Delphi panels; (3) feedback from participants at training sessions we ran; and (4) comments made on RAMESES mailing list. The quality standards and training materials are freely available online (www.ramesesproject.org).DiscussionThe production of these standards and guidance drew on multiple sources of knowledge and expertise, and a high degree of a consensus was achieved despite ongoing debate among researchers about the overall place of these methodologies in the secondary research toolkit. As with all secondary research methods, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency of studies. We anticipate that as more reviews are undertaken, further refinement will be needed to the publication and quality standards and training materials.LimitationsThe project’s outputs are not definitive and in the future updating and further development is likely to be needed.ConclusionAn initial set of publication standards, quality standards and training materials have been produced for researchers, users and funders of realist or meta-narrative reviews. As realist and meta-narrative reviews are relatively new approaches to evidence synthesis, methodological development is needed for both review approaches.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses

There is growing interest in realist synthesis as an alternative systematic review method. This approach offers the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example, by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. No previous publication standards exist for reporting realist syntheses. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for realist systematic reviews. A mixed method study synthesising data between 2011-2012 from a literature review, online Delphi panel and feedback from training, workshops and email list. We: (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist syntheses; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published syntheses, thereby identifying how rigour may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, realist research, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing realist syntheses and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence syntheses and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards. We identified 35 published realist syntheses, provided real-time support to 9 ongoing syntheses and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 37 members. Within 3 rounds this panel had reached consensus on 19 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 91%. This project used multiple sources to develop and draw together evidence and expertise in realist synthesis. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Realist synthesis is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of realist syntheses.

RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

BackgroundMeta-narrative review is one of an emerging menu of new approaches to qualitative and mixed-method systematic review. A meta-narrative review seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways in which researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. No previous publication standards exist for the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. This publication standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for meta-narrative reviews.MethodsWe (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in meta-narrative reviews; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published reviews, thereby identifying how rigor may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, meta-narrative reviews, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing meta-narrative reviews and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards.ResultsWe identified nine published meta-narrative reviews, provided real-time support to four ongoing reviews and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature, and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 33 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 20 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 90%.ConclusionThis project used multiple sources to draw together evidence and expertise in meta-narrative reviews. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Meta-narrative review is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further theoretical and methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of meta-narrative reviews.To encourage dissemination of the RAMESES publication standards, this article is co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and is freely accessible on Wiley Online Library (http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan).Please see related articles http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/21 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/22

RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses

BackgroundThere is growing interest in realist synthesis as an alternative systematic review method. This approach offers the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example, by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. No previous publication standards exist for reporting realist syntheses. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for realist systematic reviews.MethodsWe (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist syntheses; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published syntheses, thereby identifying how rigor may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, realist research, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing realist syntheses and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence syntheses and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards.ResultsWe identified 35 published realist syntheses, provided real-time support to 9 on-going syntheses and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 37 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 19 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 91%.ConclusionThis project used multiple sources to develop and draw together evidence and expertise in realist synthesis. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Realist synthesis is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of realist syntheses.To encourage dissemination of the RAMESES publication standards, this article is co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and is freely accessible on Wiley Online Library (http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan).Please see related article http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/20 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/22

RAMESES publication standards: meta‐narrative reviews

Meta-narrative review is one of an emerging menu of new approaches to qualitative and mixed-method systematic review. A meta-narrative review seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. No previous publication standards exist for the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. This publication standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for meta-narrative reviews. A mixed method study synthesising data between 2011 to 2012 from a literature review, online Delphi panel and feedback from training, workshops and email list. We: (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in meta-narrative reviews; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published reviews, thereby identifying how rigor may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, meta-narrative reviews, policy, and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps, and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing meta-narrative reviews and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence review, and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards. We identified nine published meta-narrative reviews, provided real-time support to four ongoing reviews, and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature, and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 33 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 20 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 90%. This project used multiple sources to draw together evidence and expertise in meta-narrative reviews. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Meta-narrative review is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further theoretical and methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of meta-narrative reviews.

Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)

BackgroundThere is growing interest in theory-driven, qualitative and mixed-method approaches to systematic review as an alternative to (or to extend and supplement) conventional Cochrane-style reviews. These approaches offer the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. However, the quality of such reviews can be difficult to assess. This study aims to produce methodological guidance, publication standards and training resources for those seeking to use the realist and/or meta-narrative approach to systematic review.Methods/designWe will: [a] collate and summarise existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist and meta-narrative systematic review; [b] consider the extent to which these principles have been followed by published and in-progress reviews, thereby identifying how rigour may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; [c] using an online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts from academia and policy, produce a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; [d] produce training materials with learning outcomes linked to these steps; [e] pilot these standards and training materials prospectively on real reviews-in-progress, capturing methodological and other challenges as they arise; [f] synthesise expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into more definitive guidance and standards; [g] disseminate outputs to audiences in academia and policy. The outputs of the study will be threefold:1. Quality standards and methodological guidance for realist and meta-narrative reviews for use by researchers, research sponsors, students and supervisors2. A 'RAMESES' (Realist and Meta-review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards) statement (comparable to CONSORT or PRISMA) of publication standards for such reviews, published in an open-access academic journal.3. A training module for researchers, including learning outcomes, outline course materials and assessment criteria.DiscussionRealist and meta-narrative review are relatively new approaches to systematic review whose overall place in the secondary research toolkit is not yet fully established. As with all secondary research methods, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency of studies.