Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses : Evolving Standards Research Articles

Realist Evaluation of Autism ServiCe Delivery (RE-ASCeD): which diagnostic pathways work best, for whom and in what context? Protocol for a rapid realist review.

IntroductionThe National Health Service (NHS) Long-Term Plan (2019) acknowledges that children and young people with suspected autism wait too long for diagnostic assessment and sets out to reduce waiting times. However, diagnostic pathways vary with limited evidence on what model works best, for whom and in what circumstances. The National Autism Plan for Children (2003) recommended that assessment should be completed within 13 weeks but referral to diagnosis can take as long as 799 days.This Rapid Realist Review (RRR) is the first work package in a national programme of research: a Realist Evaluation of Autism ServiCe Delivery (RE-ASCeD). We explore how particular approaches may deliver high-quality and timely autism diagnostic services for children with possible autism; high quality is defined as compliant with National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence (2011) guidelines, and timely as a pathway lasting no more than one calendar year, based on previous work.Methods and analysisRRR is a well-established approach to synthesising evidence within a compressed timeframe to identify models of service delivery leading to desired outcomes. RRR works backwards from intended outcomes, identified by NICE guidelines and the NHS England Long-Term Plan. The focus is a clearly defined intervention (the diagnostic pathway), associated with specific outcomes (high quality and timely), within a particular set of parameters (Autism and Child & Adolescent Mental Health services in the UK). Our Expert Stakeholder Group consists of policymakers, content experts and knowledge users with a wide range of experience to supplement, tailor and expedite the process. The RRR is consistent with Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) and includes identifying the research question, searching for information, quality appraisal, data extraction, synthesising the evidence, validation of findings with experts and dissemination.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval not required. Findings will inform the wider RE-ASCeD evaluation and be reported to NHS England.Trial registration number NCT04422483. This protocol relates to Pre-results.

Developing a program theory of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and the impacts on the health care system: protocol for a rapid realist review.

The patient-oriented research (POR) discourse has been criticized as being fragmented, lacking consistent terminology and having few evaluative studies. Our research team will use rapid realist review methodology to generate broad, process-based program theory regarding how partnering patients with researchers in POR generates an impact within a health care system. This protocol for a rapid realist review will involve multiple steps, including research question development; preliminary program theory and search strategy development; study selection and appraisal; data extraction, analysis and synthesis; and program theory refinement. We will be guided by the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards for realist synthesis. Unlike traditional reviews, a realist review aims to discover and understand causal processes that exist within a complex environment, asking questions regarding what works for whom, under what circumstances, how and why. Our multidisciplinary team consists of patient partners, health care professionals, a health sciences librarian and health services researchers. Patient partners are full research partners, supporting development of our guiding research question and identifying community partners and stakeholder groups to disseminate our findings. Patient partners will be asked to recommend literature sources, to review and vet our set of search terms, and to review, evaluate and reflect on our initial program theory in light of their personal, lived expertise. We will share the results of our rapid realist review with community partners and stakeholder groups. We will also disseminate our program theory by means of publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at scientific conferences.

Medication management in older people: the MEMORABLE realist synthesis

Background The number and proportion of older people in the UK are increasing, as are multimorbidity (potentially reducing quality of life) and polypharmacy (increasing the risk of adverse drug events). Together, these complex factors are challenging for older people, informal carers, and health and care practitioners. Objectives MEMORABLE (MEdication Management in Older people: Realist Approaches Based on Literature and Evaluation) aimed to understand how medication management works and propose improvements. Design A realist approach informed three work packages, combining a realist review of secondary data with a realist evaluation of primary interview data, in a theory-driven, causal analysis. Setting The setting was in the community. Participants Older people, informal carers, and health and care practitioners. Interventions Studies relating to medication management and to reviewing and reconciling medications; and realist-informed interviews. Main outcome measures Not applicable. Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and EMBASE were searched (all searched from January 2009 to July 2017; searched on 1 August 2017). Supplementary articles were identified by the Research Team. Data were also obtained through interviews. Review methods Searches of electronic databases were supplemented by citation-tracking for explanatory contributions, as well as accessing topic-relevant grey literature. Following RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) guidelines, articles were screened and iteratively analysed with interview data, to generate theory-informed (normalisation process theory) explanations. Results Developing a framework to explain medication management as a complex intervention across five stages: identifying problem (Stage 1), starting, changing or stopping medications (Stage 3) and continuing to take medications (Stage 4), where older people, sometimes with informal carers, make individual decisions and follow routines that fit medication management into their day-to-day lives, engendering a sense of control. In getting diagnosis and/or medications (Stage 2) and reviewing/reconciling medications (Stage 5), older people and practitioners share decision-making in time-limited contacts: involving four steps – sense-making, relationships, action and reflection/monitoring (normalisation process theory); and conceptualising burden – through a detailed analysis of Stage 5, generating a theoretical framework and identifying five burden types amendable to mitigation: ambiguity, concealment, unfamiliarity, fragmentation and exclusion. Proposing interventions: risk identification – a simple way of identifying older people and informal carers who are not coping, at risk and who need appropriate help and support; and individualised information – a short, personalised record and reference point, co-produced and shared by older people, informal carers and practitioners that addresses the experience of living with multimorbidities and polypharmacy. Limitations Few studies directly address the complexity of medication management as a process and how it works. Limitations included, having identified the overall complexity, the need to focus the analysis on reviewing/reconciling medications (Stage 5), the exclusion of non-English-language literature, the focus on non-institutionalised populations and the broad definition of older people. Conclusions MEMORABLE explored the complexity of medication management. It highlighted the way interpersonal stages in the medication management process, notably reviewing/reconciling medications, contribute to the mitigation of burdens that are often hidden. Future work Co-produced studies to scope and trial the two proposed interventions; studies to extend the detailed understanding of medication management, linked to burden mitigation; and a study to clarify the medication management outcomes wanted by older people, informal carers and practitioners. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016043506. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Clinical teaching unit design: a realist systematic review protocol of evidence-based practices for clinical education and health service delivery

IntroductionThe clinical teaching unit (CTU) has emerged as a near-ubiquitous model of clinical education across Canadian and international medical schools since it was first proposed over 50 years ago. However,...

Depenalization, diversion and decriminalization: A realist review and programme theory of alternatives to criminalization for simple drug possession

Alternatives to criminalization for the simple possession of illicit drugs are increasingly of interest to policy makers. But there is no existing theoretically based, empirically tested framework that can inform development and evaluation. This article presents a realist programme theory of such alternatives. It bases this on a realist review, which followed the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES). It describes the systematic process of searching the literature in English on nine relevant countries (Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Jamaica, Netherland, Portugal, the UK, the USA) for information on alternative measures in three categories: depenalization; diversion; and decriminalization. It shows how these measures – in theory and in practice – combine with pre-existing social conditions and institutional contexts to trigger mechanisms across three causal pathways (normative; criminal justice; and health and social services). It shows how some posited causal processes are more empirically supported than others. Alternative measures can reduce harms imposed by criminal justice processes without increasing drug use or related health and crime harms, but this depends on specific combinations of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes.

The influence of narrative medicine on medical students’ readiness for holistic care practice: a realist synthesis protocol

IntroductionHolistic healthcare considers the whole person—their body, mind, spirit and emotions—and has been associated with narrative medicine practice. Narrative medicine is medicine performed with narrative skill and has been offered...

A realist review of which advocacy interventions work for which abused women under what circumstances.

A realist review of which advocacy interventions work for which abused women under what circumstances.

Underlying mechanisms of complex interventions addressing the care of older adults with multimorbidity: a realist review

ObjectivesTo understand how and why effective multi-chronic disease management interventions influence health outcomes in older adults 65 years of age or older.DesignA realist review.Data sourcesElectronic databases including Medline and Embase...

Participation of children with disabilities in school: A realist systematic review of psychosocial and environmental factors.

BackgroundIn order to make informed decisions about how best to support children and young people with disabilities, effective strategies that facilitate active and meaningful participation in school are required. Clinical factors, diagnosis or impairments somewhat helpful in determining what should be provided in interventions. However, clinical factors alone will not offer a clear view of how to support participation. It is helpful then to look at wider psychosocial and environmental factors. The aim of this review was to synthesise evidence of psychosocial and environmental factors associated with school participation of 4–12 year old children with disabilities to inform the development of participation-fostering interventions.MethodsA systematic search and synthesis using realist methods was conducted of published research. Papers had to include consideration of psychosocial and/or environment factors for school participation of children with disabilities. The review was completed in accordance with the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Papers were identified via Boolean search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PhycINFO and ERIC (January 2006-October 2018). Appraisal focussed on contributions in terms of whether the articles are appropriate for the review (relevance) and research quality (rigour). Data were analyzed using content and thematic analysis methods using a realist framework. A narrative synthesis of results was reported.Results and implicationsWe identified 1828 papers in the initial search. Seventy two papers were included in the final synthesis. Synthesis of findings led to three overarching mechanisms representing psychosocial factors for children (1) identity (2) competence and (3) experience of mind and body. Environmental aspects (context) compromised five interrelated areas: (1) structures and organization, (2) peers, (3) adults, (4) space and (5) objects. Our synthesis provides insights on how professionals may organize efforts to improve children’s participation. Consideration of these findings will help to proactively deal with suboptimal participation outcomes. Development of theoretically determined assessments and interventions for management of school participation are now required.

Remediating doctors’ performance to restore patient safety: a realist review protocol

IntroductionUnderperformance by doctors poses a risk to patient safety. Remediation is an intervention designed to remedy underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice. Remediation is widely used across healthcare...

Supporting shared decision-making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis

BackgroundHealth-care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision-making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; this is particularly the case for older people with complex needs.ObjectivesTo provide a context-relevant understanding of how models to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs and how they might be applied to integrated care models.DesignRealist synthesis following Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards.ParticipantsTwenty-four stakeholders took part in interviews.Data sourcesElectronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google and Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Lateral searches were also carried out. All types of evidence were included.Review methodsIterative stakeholder-driven, three-stage approach, involving (1) scoping of the literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, (2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories and (3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11).ResultsWe included 88 papers, of which 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four theories (context–mechanism–outcome configurations) that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care; organising systems to support and prioritise SDM; supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM; and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that create trust between those involved, allow service users to feel that they are respected and understood, and engender confidence to engage in SDM.LimitationsThere is a lack of evidence on interventions to promote SDM in older people with complex needs or on interprofessional approaches to SDM.ConclusionsModels of SDM for older people with complex health and care needs should be conceptualised as a series of conversations that patients, and their family carers, may have with a variety of different health and care professionals. To embed SDM in practice requires a shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers are likely to need support, both in terms of the way services are organised and delivered and in terms of their own continuing professional development. Older people with complex needs may need support to engage in SDM. How this support is best provided needs further exploration, although face-to-face interactions and ongoing patient–professional relationships are key.Future workThere is a need for further work to establish how organisational structures can be better aligned to meet the requirements of older people with complex needs. This includes a need to define and evaluate the contribution that different members of health and care teams can make to SDM for older people with complex health and care needs.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039013.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

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.

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...

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: 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: 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.

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: 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