Towards realist-informed ripple effects mapping (RREM): positioning the approach.
Causal connections
RREM
Realist
Ripple Effects Mapping
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:
30 Oct 2024
30 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
09
02
2024
accepted:
14
10
2024
medline:
31
10
2024
pubmed:
31
10
2024
entrez:
31
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39478471
doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02371-7
pii: 10.1186/s12874-024-02371-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
259Informations de copyright
© 2024. Crown.
Références
Nau T, Bauman A, Smith BJ, Bellew W. A scoping review of systems approaches for increasing physical activity in populations. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2022;20(1):104.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00906-2
pubmed: 36175916
pmcid: 9524093
McGill E, Er V, Penney T, Egan M, White M, Meier P, Whitehead M, Lock K, de Cuevas RA, Smith R, Savona N. Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: a research methods review. Soc Sci Med. 2021;272: 113697.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697
pubmed: 33508655
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, Boyd KA, Craig N, French DP, McIntosh E, Petticrew M. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. bmj. 2021;374:n2061.
Gosselin V, Laberge S. Do the implementation processes of a school-based daily physical activity (DPA) program vary according to the socioeconomic context of the schools? a realist evaluation of the Active at school program. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1–9.
Nobles J, Wheeler J, Dunleavy-Harris K, Holmes R, Inman-Ward A, Potts A, Hall J, Redwood S, Jago R, Foster C. Ripple effects mapping: capturing the wider impacts of systems change efforts in public health. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):1–4.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01570-4
Rodriguez Espinosa P, King AC, Blanco-Velazquez I, Banchoff AW, Campero MI, Chen WT, Rosas LG. Engaging diverse midlife and older adults in a multilevel participatory physical activity intervention: evaluating impacts using Ripple Effects Mapping. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2023;ibad018.
Washburn LT, Traywick L, Thornton L, Vincent J, Brown T. Using ripple effects mapping to evaluate a community-based health program: perspectives of program implementers. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(4):601–10.
doi: 10.1177/1524839918804506
pubmed: 30366499
Willis CE, Reid S, Elliott C, Rosenberg M, Nyquist A, Jahnsen R, Girdler S. A realist evaluation of a physical activity participation intervention for children and youth with disabilities: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how? BMC Pediatr. 2018;18(1):1–5.
doi: 10.1186/s12887-018-1089-8
Barbrook-Johnson P, Castellani B, Hills D, Penn A, Gilbert N. Policy evaluation for a complex world: Practical methods and reflections from the UK Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity across the Nexus. Evaluation. 2021;27(1):4–17.
doi: 10.1177/1356389020976491
Chazdon S, Emery M, Hansen D, Higgins L, Sero R. A Field Guide to Ripple Effects Mapping. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy. 2017. https://hdl.handle.net/11299/190639 .
Hall J, Bingham DD, Seims A, Dogra SA, Burkhardt J, Nobles J, McKenna J, Bryant M, Barber SE, Daly-Smith A. A whole system approach to increasing children’s physical activity in a multi-ethnic UK city: a process evaluation protocol. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1–6.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12255-w
Nobles J, Fox C, Inman-Ward A, Beasley T, Redwood S, Jago R, Foster C. Navigating the river (S) of systems change: a multi-methods, qualitative evaluation exploring the implementation of a systems approach to physical activity in Gloucestershire, England. BMJ Open. 2022;12(8): e063638.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063638
pubmed: 35940842
pmcid: 9364398
Jayasinghe S, Holloway TP, Soward R, Patterson KA, Ahuja KD, Dalton L, Murray S, Hughes R, Byrne NM, Hills AP. “An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure”: Proposal for a Social Prescribing Strategy for Obesity Prevention and Improvement in Health and Well-being. JMIR Research Protocols. 2023;12(1): e41280.
doi: 10.2196/41280
pubmed: 36800232
pmcid: 9985003
Van Belle S, Abejirinde IO, Ssennyonjo A, Srinivas PN, Hebbar P, Marchal B. How to develop a realist programme theory using Margaret Archer’s structure–agency–culture framework: The case of adolescent accountability for sexual and reproductive health in urban resource-constrained settings. Evaluation. 2023;29(3):259–75.
doi: 10.1177/13563890231185167
Hall J, Mansfield L. The benefits and complexities of integrating mixed method findings using the Pillar Integration Process: A workplace health intervention case study. J Mixed Methods Res. 2023;15586898231196287.
Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation| SAGE Publications Inc. 1997.
Phillips DC. Philosophy, science and social inquiry: Contemporary methodological controversies in social science and related applied fields of research. Pergamon Press; 1987.
Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):1–7.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0237-x
Greenhalgh J, Manzano A. Understanding ‘context’in realist evaluation and synthesis. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2022;25(5):583–95.
doi: 10.1080/13645579.2021.1918484
Renmans D, Pleguezuelo VC. Methods in realist evaluation: A mapping review. Eval Program Plann. 2023;97:102209.
doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102209
pubmed: 36571967
Harris K. Building sport for development practitioners’ capacity for undertaking monitoring and evaluation–reflections on a training programme building capacity in realist evaluation. International journal of sport policy and politics. 2018;10(4):795–814.
doi: 10.1080/19406940.2018.1442870
Pelletier C, Pousette A, Fox G, Keahey R, Ward K, Faulkner G, Rasali D, Allison S. Move the north: evaluation of a regional stakeholder engagement initiative to support the development of a community-partnered physical activity research agenda. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2019;5:1–3.
doi: 10.1186/s40900-019-0167-x
P Rigby B, Van der Graaf P, B Azevedo L, Hayes L, Gardner B, J Dodd-Reynolds C. Challenges, opportunities and solutions for local physical activity stakeholders: an implementation case study from a cross-sectoral physical activity network in Northeast England. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–4.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09847-3
Punton M, Vogel I, Lloyd R. Reflections from a realist evaluation in progress: scaling ladders and stitching theory. Brighton: CDI Practice Paper; 2016;18.
Harris K, Henderson S, Wink B. Mobilising Q methodology within a realist evaluation: Lessons from an empirical study. Evaluation. 2019;25(4):430–48.
doi: 10.1177/1356389019841645
Kidd L, Millar JD, Mason H, Quinn T, Gallacher KI, Jones F, Fisher RJ, Lebedis T, Barber M, Brennan K, Smith M. Protocol: Supported self-management in community stroke rehabilitation: what is it and how does it work? A protocol for a realist evaluation study. BMJ open. 2022;12(1):e055491.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055491
pubmed: 35058265
pmcid: 8783824
Mason J, Oatley C, Harris K, Ryan L. How and why does Local Area Coordination work for people in different contexts? Methodological Innovations. 2021;14(1):2059799120985381.
doi: 10.1177/2059799120985381
Ryan L, Harris K, Henderson S. Introducing Realist Evaluation within Sport and Leisure. Evaluation in Sport and Leisure. 2022:115.
Dalkin SM, Jones D, Lhussier M, Cunningham B. Understanding integrated care pathways in palliative care using realist evaluation: a mixed methods study protocol. BMJ open. 2012;2(4):e001533.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001533
pubmed: 22761292
pmcid: 3391371
Brown S, Dalkin SM, Bate A, Bradford R, Allen C, Brittain K, Clarke A, Hand A. Protocol: Exploring and understanding the scope and value of the Parkinson’s nurse in the UK (The USP Project): a realist economic evaluation protocol. BMJ open. 2020;10(10):e037224.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037224
pubmed: 33067277
pmcid: 7569928
Shulha LM, Whitmore E, Cousins JB, Gilbert N, al Hudib H. Introducing evidence-based principles to guide collaborative approaches to evaluation: Results of an empirical process. Am J Eval. 2016;37(2):193–215.
doi: 10.1177/1098214015615230
Manzano A. The craft of interviewing in realist evaluation. Evaluation. 2016;22(3):342–60.
doi: 10.1177/1356389016638615
Jagosh J. Retroductive theorizing in Pawson and Tilley’s applied scientific realism. Journal of Critical Realism. 2020;19(2):121–30.
doi: 10.1080/14767430.2020.1723301
Mukumbang FC, Marchal B, Van Belle S, van Wyk B. A realist approach to eliciting the initial programme theory of the antiretroviral treatment adherence club intervention in the Western Cape Province. South Africa BMC medical research methodology. 2018;18:1–6.
Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):1–6.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1089-4
Bailey A, Harris K. An autoethnographic study of realist knowledge translation within sport development. Managing Sport and Leisure. 2021;26(1–2):41–59.
doi: 10.1080/23750472.2020.1766376
Schaillée H, Spaaij R, Jeanes R, Theeboom M. Knowledge translation practices, enablers, and constraints: bridging the research–practice divide in sport management. J Sport Manag. 2019;33(5):366–78.
doi: 10.1123/jsm.2018-0175
Szedlak C, Smith MJ, Callary B. Developing a ‘letter to my younger self’to learn from the experiences of expert coaches. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2021;13(4):569–85.
doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2020.1725609
Coghlan AT, Preskill H, Tzavaras CT. An overview of appreciative inquiry in evaluation. N Dir Eval. 2003;2003(100):5–22.
doi: 10.1002/ev.96
Cousins JB. Commentary: Minimizing evaluation misuse as principled practice. Am J Eval. 2004;25(3):391–7.
doi: 10.1177/109821400402500311
Patton MQ. Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Guilford press; 2010.
Jeanes R, Lindsey I. Where’s the “evidence?” Reflecting on monitoring and evaluation within sport-for-development. InSport, social development and peace. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2014. p. 197–217.
Coalter F. Sports clubs, social capital and social regeneration:’Ill-defined interventions with hard to follow outcomes’? Sport in society. 2007;10(4):537–59.
doi: 10.1080/17430430701388723
Nicholls S, Giles AR, Sethna C. Perpetuating the ‘lack of evidence’discourse in sport for development: Privileged voices, unheard stories and subjugated knowledge. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2011;46(3):249–64.
doi: 10.1177/1012690210378273
Cousins JB, Whitmore E, Shulha L. Arguments for a common set of principles for collaborative inquiry in evaluation. Am J Eval. 2013;34(1):7–22.
doi: 10.1177/1098214012464037
Bass B, Riggio R. Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates. Inc., Publishers; 2006.
doi: 10.4324/9781410617095
Van Dierendonck D, Stam D, Boersma P, De Windt N, Alkema J. Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. Leadersh Q. 2014;25(3):544–62.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014