实现基于现实的涟漪效应绘图(RREM):方法定位。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1186/s12874-024-02371-7
Kevin Harris, James Nobles, Louis Ryan, Christoph Szedlak, Hannah Taylor, Rowena Hawkins, Alice Cline, Elizabeth Smith, Amelia Hall
{"title":"实现基于现实的涟漪效应绘图(RREM):方法定位。","authors":"Kevin Harris, James Nobles, Louis Ryan, Christoph Szedlak, Hannah Taylor, Rowena Hawkins, Alice Cline, Elizabeth Smith, Amelia Hall","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02371-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evaluation approaches such as ripple effects mapping (REM) and realist evaluation have emerged as popular methodologies to evidence impact, and the processes of change within public health as part of whole systems approaches. Despite the various examples of their implementation across different evaluation settings, there has been little or no evidence of how they might be effective when combined.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>With REM's potential to pragmatically illustrate impact, and realist evaluation's strength to identify how and why impacts emerge, this paper develops a rationale and process for their amalgamation. Following this, we outline a realist-informed ripple effects mapping (RREM) protocol drawing upon a physical activity based case study in Essex that may be suitable for application within evaluation settings in a range of public health, whole system and physical activity settings.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Combining these two approaches has the potential to more effectively illuminate the impacts that we see within public health and whole system approaches and initiatives. What is more, given the complexity often imbued within these approaches and initiatives, they hold capability for also capturing the causal mechanisms that explain these impacts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is our conclusion that when combined, this novel approach may help to inspire future research as well as more effective evaluation of public health and whole system approaches. This is crucial if we are to foster a culture for learning, refinement and reflection.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11523775/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards realist-informed ripple effects mapping (RREM): positioning the approach.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Harris, James Nobles, Louis Ryan, Christoph Szedlak, Hannah Taylor, Rowena Hawkins, Alice Cline, Elizabeth Smith, Amelia Hall\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-024-02371-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evaluation approaches such as ripple effects mapping (REM) and realist evaluation have emerged as popular methodologies to evidence impact, and the processes of change within public health as part of whole systems approaches. Despite the various examples of their implementation across different evaluation settings, there has been little or no evidence of how they might be effective when combined.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>With REM's potential to pragmatically illustrate impact, and realist evaluation's strength to identify how and why impacts emerge, this paper develops a rationale and process for their amalgamation. Following this, we outline a realist-informed ripple effects mapping (RREM) protocol drawing upon a physical activity based case study in Essex that may be suitable for application within evaluation settings in a range of public health, whole system and physical activity settings.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Combining these two approaches has the potential to more effectively illuminate the impacts that we see within public health and whole system approaches and initiatives. What is more, given the complexity often imbued within these approaches and initiatives, they hold capability for also capturing the causal mechanisms that explain these impacts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is our conclusion that when combined, this novel approach may help to inspire future research as well as more effective evaluation of public health and whole system approaches. This is crucial if we are to foster a culture for learning, refinement and reflection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11523775/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02371-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02371-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:涟漪效应图(REM)和现实主义评价等评价方法已成为证明公共卫生影响和变化过程的流行方法,是全系统方法的一部分。尽管在不同的评价环境中都有实施这两种评价方法的实例,但很少或没有证据表明这两种方法结合使用时如何有效:方法:由于 REM 具有以实用方式说明影响的潜力,而现实主义评价则具有确定影响产生的方式和原因的优势,本文提出了将二者结合起来的理由和过程。随后,我们根据埃塞克斯郡以体育活动为基础的案例研究,概述了以现实主义为依据的涟漪效应绘图(RREM)协议,该协议可能适用于一系列公共卫生、整个系统和体育活动环境中的评估设置:讨论:将这两种方法结合起来,有可能更有效地阐明我们在公共卫生和整个系统方法和倡议中看到的影响。更重要的是,鉴于这些方法和措施往往具有复杂性,它们还能捕捉到解释这些影响的因果机制:我们的结论是,如果将这种新方法结合起来,可能有助于激发未来的研究,并对公共卫生和全系统方法进行更有效的评估。如果我们要培养一种学习、完善和反思的文化,这一点至关重要。
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
Towards realist-informed ripple effects mapping (RREM): positioning the approach.

Background: Evaluation approaches such as ripple effects mapping (REM) and realist evaluation have emerged as popular methodologies to evidence impact, and the processes of change within public health as part of whole systems approaches. Despite the various examples of their implementation across different evaluation settings, there has been little or no evidence of how they might be effective when combined.

Methods: With REM's potential to pragmatically illustrate impact, and realist evaluation's strength to identify how and why impacts emerge, this paper develops a rationale and process for their amalgamation. Following this, we outline a realist-informed ripple effects mapping (RREM) protocol drawing upon a physical activity based case study in Essex that may be suitable for application within evaluation settings in a range of public health, whole system and physical activity settings.

Discussion: Combining these two approaches has the potential to more effectively illuminate the impacts that we see within public health and whole system approaches and initiatives. What is more, given the complexity often imbued within these approaches and initiatives, they hold capability for also capturing the causal mechanisms that explain these impacts.

Conclusions: It is our conclusion that when combined, this novel approach may help to inspire future research as well as more effective evaluation of public health and whole system approaches. This is crucial if we are to foster a culture for learning, refinement and reflection.

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
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
期刊最新文献
Motivations for enrollment in a COVID-19 ring-based post-exposure prophylaxis trial: qualitative examination of participant experiences. Concordance between humans and GPT-4 in appraising the methodological quality of case reports and case series using the Murad tool. Bayesian additive regression trees for predicting childhood asthma in the CHILD cohort study. Incorporating external controls in the design of randomized clinical trials: a case study in solid tumors. Recruiting and retaining healthcare workers in Scotland to a longitudinal COVID-19 study: a descriptive analysis.
×
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