52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The three stages of building and testing mid-level theories in a realist RCT: a theoretical and methodological case-example

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of social interventions are often criticised as failing to open the ‘black box’ whereby they only address questions about ‘what works’ without explaining the underlying processes of implementation and mechanisms of action, and how these vary by contextual characteristics of person and place. Realist RCTs are proposed as an approach to evaluation science that addresses these gaps while preserving the strengths of RCTs in providing evidence with strong internal validity in estimating effects.

          Methods

          In the context of growing interest in designing and conducting realist trials, there is an urgent need to offer a worked example to provide guidance on how such an approach might be practically taken forward. The aim of this paper is to outline a three-staged theoretical and methodological process of undertaking a realist RCT using the example of the evaluation of a whole-school restorative intervention aiming to reduce aggression and bullying in English secondary schools.

          Discussion

          First, informed by the findings of our initial pilot trial and sociological theory, we elaborate our theory of change and specific a priori hypotheses about how intervention mechanisms interact with context to produce outcomes. Second, we describe how we will use emerging findings from the integral process evaluation within the RCT to refine, and add to, these a priori hypotheses before the collection of quantitative, follow-up data. Third, we will test our hypotheses using a combination of process and outcome data via quantitative analyses of effect mediation (examining mechanisms) and moderation (examining contextual contingencies). The results are then used to refine and further develop the theory of change.

          Conclusion

          The aim of the realist RCT approach is thus not merely to assess whether the intervention is effective or not, but to develop empirically informed mid-range theory through a three-stage process. There are important implications for those involved with reporting and reviewing RCTs, including the use of new, iterative protocols.

          Trial registration

          Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10751359 (Registered 11 March 2014)

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Social Theory and Social Structure

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Realist RCTs of complex interventions - an oxymoron.

            Bonell et al. discuss the challenges of carrying out randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate complex interventions in public health, and consider the role of realist evaluation in enhancing this design (Bonell, Fletcher, Morton, Lorenc, & Moore, 2012). They argue for a "synergistic, rather than oppositional relationship between realist and randomised evaluation" and that "it is possible to benefit from the insights provided by realist evaluation without relinquishing the RCT as the best means of examining intervention causality." We present counter-arguments to their analysis of realist evaluation and their recommendations for realist RCTs. Bonell et al. are right to question whether and how (quasi-)experimental designs can be improved to better evaluate complex public health interventions. However, the paper does not explain how a research design that is fundamentally built upon a positivist ontological and epistemological position can be meaningfully adapted to allow it to be used from within a realist paradigm. The recommendations for "realist RCTs" do not sufficiently take into account important elements of complexity that pose major challenges for the RCT design. They also ignore key tenets of the realist evaluation approach. We propose that the adjective 'realist' should continue to be used only for studies based on a realist philosophy and whose analytic approach follows the established principles of realist analysis. It seems more correct to call the approach proposed by Bonell and colleagues 'theory informed RCT', which indeed can help in enhancing RCTs. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from ‘what works’ to ‘what happens’

              Systematic review methods are developing rapidly, and most researchers would recognise their key methodological aspects, such as a closely focussed question, a comprehensive search, and a focus on synthesising ‘stronger’ rather than ‘weaker’ evidence. However, it may be helpful to question some of these underlying principles, because while they work well for simpler review questions, they may result in overly narrow approaches to more complex questions and interventions. This commentary discusses some core principles of systematic reviews, and how they may require further rethinking, particularly as reviewers turn their attention to increasingly complex issues, where a Bayesian perspective on evidence synthesis, which would aim to assemble evidence - of different types, if necessary - in order to inform decisions’, may be more productive than the ‘traditional’ systematic review model. Among areas identified for future research are the examination of publication bias in qualitative research; research on the efficiency and potential biases of comprehensive searches in different disciplines; and the use of Bayesian methods in evidence synthesis. The incorporation of a systems perspective into systematic reviews is also an area which needs rapid development.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                + 44 (0) 20 7612 6573 , F.Jamal@ioe.ac.uk
                FletcherA@cardiff.ac.uk
                Nicholashackleton@hotmail.com
                Diana.Elbourne@lshtm.ac.uk
                R.viner@ucl.ac.uk
                C.bonell@ioe.ac.uk
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                15 October 2015
                15 October 2015
                2015
                : 16
                : 466
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, 18 Woburn Square, London, WC1H 0NR UK
                [ ]School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD UK
                [ ]UCL Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH UK
                [ ]Medical Statistics Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK
                Article
                980
                10.1186/s13063-015-0980-y
                4608279
                26470794
                12be6c2b-3a17-45a5-9ec6-fa0b4e7822a2
                © Jamal et al. 2015

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 22 June 2015
                : 28 September 2015
                Categories
                Methodology
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                realist,randomised controlled trials,complex interventions,social experiments,generalisability,social epidemiology,schools

                Comments

                Comment on this article