Reporting guidelines for realist evaluations seek to improve clarity and transparency

Vivian A Welch; Andrea C Tricco

doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0658-7

Reporting guidelines for realist evaluations seek to improve clarity and transparency

BMC Med. 2016 Jul 21;14(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0658-7.

Authors

Vivian A Welch^{1

2}, Andrea C Tricco^{3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Vivian.Welch@uottawa.ca.
² School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Vivian.Welch@uottawa.ca.
³ Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
⁴ Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

An increasing number of realist evaluations are being conducted from a wide range of disciplinary perspectives and with diverse, fit-for-purpose methods. This commentary discusses the recent BMC Medicine publication of RAMESES II reporting guidelines for realist evaluations. Knowledge users such as program implementers and decision-makers will benefit from the increased transparency of reporting and interpretation in light of the totality of evidence encouraged by this guidance. It is hoped that these reporting guidelines will eventually lead to improved knowledge synthesis and contribute to the cumulative science regarding realist evaluation.Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1.

Keywords: Knowledge synthesis; Realist evaluation; Reporting guidelines.

Publication types

Editorial
Comment

MeSH terms

Biomedical Research / standards*
Guidelines as Topic*
Periodicals as Topic / standards*
Publishing / standards*