Advisory groups in realist reviews: Systematically mapping current research and recommendations for practice

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1002/cesm.12073

Jessica Power, Sara Dada, Andrew Booth, Aoife De Brún, Brynne Gilmore

{"title":"Advisory groups in realist reviews: Systematically mapping current research and recommendations for practice","authors":"Jessica Power, Sara Dada, Andrew Booth, Aoife De Brún, Brynne Gilmore","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Realist reviews may involve groups or panels external to the research team who provide external and independent perspectives informing the review based on their experience of the topic area. These panels or groups are termed in this study as an “advisory group.” This study aims to map current practice of advisory groups in realist reviews and provide guidance for planning and reporting.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A “best-fit” framework synthesis methodology was used by first searching for a best-fit framework and then conducting a systematic search to identify a sample of realist reviews and rapid realist reviews (RRRs) from the most recent year, 2021. Nine databases were searched: CINAHL Complete, Cochrane, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science Core Collection. Screening and data extraction was conducted by two researchers. The chosen best-fit framework (ACTIVE framework) informed the data extraction tool.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>One hundred and seven reviews (93 realist reviews, 14 RRRs) were identified for inclusion. Of these, 40% (<i>n</i> = 37) of realist reviews and 71.5% (<i>n</i> = 10) of RRRs mentioned use of an advisory group, though there was considerable variation in terminology used. Individuals in advisory groups were involved at varying stages of the review and tended to bring experience in the topic area from the perspective of (i) a lived experience, that is, patients, carers, family members (<i>n</i> = 15 realist reviews; <i>n</i> = 4 RRRs); (ii) professional experience, such as healthcare professionals (<i>n</i> = 20 realist reviews; <i>n</i> = 6 RRRs); or (iii) policy or research experience in the topic area (<i>n</i> = 19 realist reviews; <i>n</i> = 7 RRRs).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This study proposes a definition of advisory groups, considerations for advisory group use, and suggested items for reporting. The purpose of the advisory group should be carefully considered when deciding on their use in a realist review.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12073","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Realist reviews may involve groups or panels external to the research team who provide external and independent perspectives informing the review based on their experience of the topic area. These panels or groups are termed in this study as an “advisory group.” This study aims to map current practice of advisory groups in realist reviews and provide guidance for planning and reporting.

Methods

A “best-fit” framework synthesis methodology was used by first searching for a best-fit framework and then conducting a systematic search to identify a sample of realist reviews and rapid realist reviews (RRRs) from the most recent year, 2021. Nine databases were searched: CINAHL Complete, Cochrane, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science Core Collection. Screening and data extraction was conducted by two researchers. The chosen best-fit framework (ACTIVE framework) informed the data extraction tool.

Results

One hundred and seven reviews (93 realist reviews, 14 RRRs) were identified for inclusion. Of these, 40% (n = 37) of realist reviews and 71.5% (n = 10) of RRRs mentioned use of an advisory group, though there was considerable variation in terminology used. Individuals in advisory groups were involved at varying stages of the review and tended to bring experience in the topic area from the perspective of (i) a lived experience, that is, patients, carers, family members (n = 15 realist reviews; n = 4 RRRs); (ii) professional experience, such as healthcare professionals (n = 20 realist reviews; n = 6 RRRs); or (iii) policy or research experience in the topic area (n = 19 realist reviews; n = 7 RRRs).

Conclusions

This study proposes a definition of advisory groups, considerations for advisory group use, and suggested items for reporting. The purpose of the advisory group should be carefully considered when deciding on their use in a realist review.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

现实主义审查中的咨询小组：系统规划当前的研究和实践建议

引言现实主义审查可能会涉及研究团队以外的小组或专家团，他们根据自己在专题领域的经验为审查提供外部和独立的观点。本研究将这些小组称为 "顾问小组"。本研究旨在描绘现实主义研究中咨询小组的当前实践，并为规划和报告提供指导。方法采用 "最合适 "框架综合法，首先搜索最合适的框架，然后进行系统搜索，以确定最近一年（2021 年）的现实主义研究综述和快速现实主义研究综述 (RRR) 的样本。共检索了九个数据库：CINAHL Complete、Cochrane、Embase、ERIC、MEDLINE、PsycInfo、Social Services Abstracts、Sociological Abstracts 和 Web of Science Core Collection。筛选和数据提取由两名研究人员进行。所选的最合适框架（ACTIVE 框架）为数据提取工具提供了参考。结果有 107 篇综述（93 篇现实主义综述，14 篇研究报告）被确定纳入。其中，40%（n = 37）的现实主义研究综述和 71.5%（n = 10）的研究报告提到了咨询小组的使用情况，但使用的术语存在很大差异。咨询小组的成员参与了不同阶段的综述，并倾向于从以下角度提供专题领域的经验：(i) 生活经验，即患者、护理人员、家庭成员（n = 15 项现实主义综述；n = 4 项研究报告）；(ii) 专业经验，如医疗保健专业人员（n = 20 项现实主义综述；n = 6 项研究报告）；或 (iii) 专题领域的政策或研究经验（n = 19 项现实主义综述；n = 7 项研究报告）。结论本研究提出了咨询小组的定义、使用咨询小组的注意事项以及建议的报告项目。在决定是否在现实主义研究中使用咨询小组时，应仔细考虑其目的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

自引率

0.00%

发文量