Power Jessica, Dada Sara, Booth Andrew, De Brún Aoife, Gilmore Brynne
School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin Dublin Ireland.
UCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research Education and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS Centre), School of Nursing Midwifery and Health Systems University College Dublin Dublin Ireland.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 Jun 11;2(6):e12073. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12073. eCollection 2024 Jun.
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.
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.
One hundred and seven reviews (93 realist reviews, 14 RRRs) were identified for inclusion. Of these, 40% ( = 37) of realist reviews and 71.5% ( = 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, i.e., patients, carers, family members ( = 15 realist reviews; = 4 RRRs); (ii) professional experience, such as healthcare professionals ( = 20 realist reviews; = 6 RRRs); or (iii) policy or research experience in the topic area ( = 19 realist reviews; = 7 RRRs).
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.
现实主义综述可能会涉及研究团队之外的群体或小组，这些群体或小组会基于其在主题领域的经验提供外部独立视角，为综述提供信息。在本研究中，这些小组或群体被称为“咨询小组”。本研究旨在梳理现实主义综述中咨询小组的当前实践情况，并为规划和报告提供指导。
采用“最佳拟合”框架综合法，首先寻找最佳拟合框架，然后进行系统检索，以确定2021年这一最近年份的现实主义综述和快速现实主义综述（RRR）样本。检索了九个数据库：护理学与健康领域数据库（CINAHL Complete）、考科蓝图书馆、荷兰医学文摘数据库（Embase）、教育资源信息中心（ERIC）、医学期刊数据库（MEDLINE）、心理学文摘数据库（PsycInfo）、社会服务摘要数据库、社会学摘要数据库和科学引文索引核心合集。由两名研究人员进行筛选和数据提取。所选的最佳拟合框架（ACTIVE框架）为数据提取工具提供了依据。
共确定107篇综述纳入研究（93篇现实主义综述，14篇快速现实主义综述）。其中，40%（n = 37）的现实主义综述和71.5%（n = 10）的快速现实主义综述提到使用了咨询小组，不过所使用的术语存在很大差异。咨询小组中的个体在综述的不同阶段参与其中，并且倾向于从以下角度带来主题领域的经验：（i）实际生活经验，即患者、护理人员、家庭成员（15篇现实主义综述；4篇快速现实主义综述）；（ii）专业经验，如医疗保健专业人员（20篇现实主义综述；6篇快速现实主义综述）；或（iii）主题领域的政策或研究经验（19篇现实主义综述；7篇快速现实主义综述）。
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报告的建议项目。在决定是否在现实主义综述中使用咨询小组时，应仔细考虑其目的。
