平衡现实主义审查结果与政策制定者和实践者的需求。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health policy and planning Pub Date : 2025-01-11 DOI:10.1093/heapol/czae097
Ferdinand C Mukumbang, Sonja Klingberg, Bipin Adhikari
{"title":"平衡现实主义审查结果与政策制定者和实践者的需求。","authors":"Ferdinand C Mukumbang, Sonja Klingberg, Bipin Adhikari","doi":"10.1093/heapol/czae097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A realist review is a theory-driven approach to synthesizing evidence based on the realist philosophy of science. Realist reviews are conducted to provide the policy and practice community with a rich, detailed and practical understanding of complex social interventions that will likely be of much more use to them when planning and implementing programmes. Robust realist reviews must balance philosophical engagement, methodological rigour and relevance to practice. Nevertheless, they have been criticized for being more philosophically inclined and less methodologically robust, with findings that have little implication for practice. Using the philosophy/epistemology➔ methodology➔ theory➔ practice concept flow, we report how we balanced philosophical principles and practical insights in a recently conducted realist review on participatory practices that impact the benefits of non-communicable disease research and interventions in low- and middle-income countries. If realist reviews are not comprehensible enough for these practitioners, their utility and relevance may suffer from being limited to a specialist cohort of academics. We propose that realist review findings and outputs must be framed and communicated to meaningfully engage practitioners without undertaking translational efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":12926,"journal":{"name":"Health policy and planning","volume":" ","pages":"97-104"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11724636/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Balancing realist review outputs with the needs of policymakers and practitioners.\",\"authors\":\"Ferdinand C Mukumbang, Sonja Klingberg, Bipin Adhikari\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/heapol/czae097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A realist review is a theory-driven approach to synthesizing evidence based on the realist philosophy of science. Realist reviews are conducted to provide the policy and practice community with a rich, detailed and practical understanding of complex social interventions that will likely be of much more use to them when planning and implementing programmes. Robust realist reviews must balance philosophical engagement, methodological rigour and relevance to practice. Nevertheless, they have been criticized for being more philosophically inclined and less methodologically robust, with findings that have little implication for practice. Using the philosophy/epistemology➔ methodology➔ theory➔ practice concept flow, we report how we balanced philosophical principles and practical insights in a recently conducted realist review on participatory practices that impact the benefits of non-communicable disease research and interventions in low- and middle-income countries. If realist reviews are not comprehensible enough for these practitioners, their utility and relevance may suffer from being limited to a specialist cohort of academics. We propose that realist review findings and outputs must be framed and communicated to meaningfully engage practitioners without undertaking translational efforts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health policy and planning\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"97-104\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11724636/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health policy and planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czae097\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health policy and planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czae097","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现实主义评论是一种基于现实主义科学哲学的理论驱动的证据综合方法。现实主义评论旨在为政策和实践界提供对复杂的社会干预措施的丰富、详细和实用的理解,这对他们规划和实施计划可能更有用。强有力的现实主义评论必须在哲学参与、方法论严谨性和实践相关性之间取得平衡。然而,现实主义评论也受到了一些批评,认为它们更倾向于哲学,而在方法论上不够严谨,其研究结果对实践的影响甚微。利用哲学/认识论→方法论→理论→实践的概念流程,我们报告了在最近进行的一项现实主义综述中,我们是如何平衡哲学原理和实践见解的,该综述涉及影响中低收入国家非传染性疾病研究和干预措施效益的参与性实践。如果现实主义综述对这些实践者来说不够通俗易懂,那么它们的实用性和相关性可能会因为仅限于学术界的专业群体而受到影响。我们建议,必须对现实主义综述的研究结果和成果进行构思和传播,以便在不开展转化工作的情况下有意义地吸引从业人员的参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Balancing realist review outputs with the needs of policymakers and practitioners.

A realist review is a theory-driven approach to synthesizing evidence based on the realist philosophy of science. Realist reviews are conducted to provide the policy and practice community with a rich, detailed and practical understanding of complex social interventions that will likely be of much more use to them when planning and implementing programmes. Robust realist reviews must balance philosophical engagement, methodological rigour and relevance to practice. Nevertheless, they have been criticized for being more philosophically inclined and less methodologically robust, with findings that have little implication for practice. Using the philosophy/epistemology➔ methodology➔ theory➔ practice concept flow, we report how we balanced philosophical principles and practical insights in a recently conducted realist review on participatory practices that impact the benefits of non-communicable disease research and interventions in low- and middle-income countries. If realist reviews are not comprehensible enough for these practitioners, their utility and relevance may suffer from being limited to a specialist cohort of academics. We propose that realist review findings and outputs must be framed and communicated to meaningfully engage practitioners without undertaking translational efforts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health policy and planning
Health policy and planning 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.10%
发文量
98
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Planning publishes health policy and systems research focusing on low- and middle-income countries. Our journal provides an international forum for publishing original and high-quality research that addresses questions pertinent to policy-makers, public health researchers and practitioners. Health Policy and Planning is published 10 times a year.
期刊最新文献
Informal employment and high burden of out-of-pocket healthcare payments among older workers: evidence from the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India. A realist evaluation of the implementation of a national tobacco control programme and policy in India. Capacity and crisis: examining the state-level policy response to COVID-19 in Tamil Nadu, India. The long-term effects of cash transfer programmes on young adults' mental health: a quasi-experimental study of Colombia, Mexico, and South Africa. A critical review of literature and a conceptual framework for organizing and researching urban health and community health services in low- and middle-income countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1