Searching for Programme theories for a realist evaluation: a case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search.

Information retrieval Internet Literature searching Programme theory Realist evaluation Scoping review

Journal

BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 08 2020
Historique:
received: 29 04 2020
accepted: 21 07 2020
entrez: 28 8 2020
pubmed: 28 8 2020
medline: 25 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Realist methodologies are increasingly being used to evaluate complex interventions in health and social care. Programme theory (ideas and assumptions of how a particular intervention works) development is the first step in a realist evaluation or a realist synthesis, with literature reviews providing important evidence to support this. Deciding how to search for programme theories is challenging and there is limited guidance available. Using an example of identifying programme theories for a realist evaluation of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments in clinical practice, the authors explore and compare several different approaches to literature searching and highlight important methodological considerations for those embarking on a programme theory review. We compared the performance of an academic database search with a simple Google search and developed an optimised search strategy for the identification primary references (i.e. documents providing the clearest examples of programme theories) associated with the use of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments (PU-RAIs). We identified the number of primary references and the total number of references retrieved per source. We then calculated the number needed to read (NNR) expressed as the total number of titles and abstracts screened to identify one relevant reference from each source. The academic database search (comprising CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, HMIC, Medline) identified 2 /10 primary references with a NNR of 1395.The Google search identified 7/10 primary references with a NNR of 10.1. The combined NNR was 286.3. The optimised search combining Google and CINAHL identified 10/10 primary references with a NNR of 40.2. The striking difference between the efficiency of the review's academic database and Google searches in finding relevant references prompted an in-depth comparison of the two types of search. The findings indicate the importance of including grey literature sources such as Google in this particular programme theory search, while acknowledging the need for transparency of methods. Further research is needed to facilitate improved guidance for programme theory searches to enhance practice in the realist field and to save researcher time and therefore resource.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Realist methodologies are increasingly being used to evaluate complex interventions in health and social care. Programme theory (ideas and assumptions of how a particular intervention works) development is the first step in a realist evaluation or a realist synthesis, with literature reviews providing important evidence to support this. Deciding how to search for programme theories is challenging and there is limited guidance available. Using an example of identifying programme theories for a realist evaluation of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments in clinical practice, the authors explore and compare several different approaches to literature searching and highlight important methodological considerations for those embarking on a programme theory review.
METHODS
We compared the performance of an academic database search with a simple Google search and developed an optimised search strategy for the identification primary references (i.e. documents providing the clearest examples of programme theories) associated with the use of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments (PU-RAIs). We identified the number of primary references and the total number of references retrieved per source. We then calculated the number needed to read (NNR) expressed as the total number of titles and abstracts screened to identify one relevant reference from each source.
RESULTS
The academic database search (comprising CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, HMIC, Medline) identified 2 /10 primary references with a NNR of 1395.The Google search identified 7/10 primary references with a NNR of 10.1. The combined NNR was 286.3. The optimised search combining Google and CINAHL identified 10/10 primary references with a NNR of 40.2.
CONCLUSION
The striking difference between the efficiency of the review's academic database and Google searches in finding relevant references prompted an in-depth comparison of the two types of search. The findings indicate the importance of including grey literature sources such as Google in this particular programme theory search, while acknowledging the need for transparency of methods. Further research is needed to facilitate improved guidance for programme theory searches to enhance practice in the realist field and to save researcher time and therefore resource.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32847521
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01084-x
pii: 10.1186/s12874-020-01084-x
pmc: PMC7450563
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

217

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PDF-2016-09-054
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Research Trainees Coordinating Centre
ID : PDF 2016-09-054
Pays : International

Références

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 13;18(1):130
pubmed: 30424741
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):357-364
pubmed: 18313560
Health Info Libr J. 2010 Jun;27(2):114-22
pubmed: 20565552
Res Synth Methods. 2016 Mar;7(1):34-45
pubmed: 26147600
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Implement Sci. 2014 May 02;9:52
pubmed: 24885669
Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 15;5(1):191
pubmed: 27846867
BMJ. 2005 Nov 5;331(7524):1064-5
pubmed: 16230312
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jul;67(7):800-10
pubmed: 24794574
BMC Med. 2016 Jun 24;14(1):96
pubmed: 27342217
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2010 Jul 23;3:103-11
pubmed: 21197359
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 17;10(9):e0138237
pubmed: 26379270
Nurs Times. 2007 Apr 10-16;103(15):38-40
pubmed: 17476847
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 05;(2):CD006471
pubmed: 24497383
J Wound Care. 2014 Jul;23(7):369-70, 372-8
pubmed: 25041313
Health Info Libr J. 2015 Sep;32(3):220-35
pubmed: 26095232
BMJ Open. 2014 Jul 22;4(7):e005601
pubmed: 25052175
Syst Rev. 2016 Sep 29;5(1):164
pubmed: 27686611
Complement Ther Med. 2004 Dec;12(4):228-32
pubmed: 15649836
BMC Res Notes. 2015 Apr 16;8:153
pubmed: 25889619
J Eval Clin Pract. 1998 Nov;4(4):339-50
pubmed: 9927249
BMJ Open. 2015 Aug 03;5(8):e008567
pubmed: 26238395
Qual Health Res. 2019 Jan;29(1):18-31
pubmed: 30799763
Res Synth Methods. 2018 Jun;9(2):195-223
pubmed: 29193834

Auteurs

Susanne Coleman (S)

Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. medscole@leeds.ac.uk.

Judy M Wright (JM)

Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.

Jane Nixon (J)

Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.

Lisette Schoonhoven (L)

University Medical Center Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht. Internal mail Str. 6.131 PO Box 85500, 3508, Utrecht, GA, Netherlands.

Maureen Twiddy (M)

Mixed Methods Research. Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK.

Joanne Greenhalgh (J)

Department of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH