| Title |
Using realist review to inform intervention development: methodological illustration and conceptual platform for collaborative care in offender mental health
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-015-0321-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Pearson, S. L Brand, C. Quinn, J. Shaw, M. Maguire, S. Michie, S. Briscoe, C. Lennox, A. Stirzaker, T. Kirkpatrick, R. Byng |
| Abstract |
This paper reports how we used a realist review, as part of a wider project to improve collaborative mental health care for prisoners with common mental health problems, to develop a conceptual platform. The importance of offenders gaining support for their mental health, and the need for practitioners across the health service, the criminal justice system, and the third sector to work together to achieve this is recognised internationally. However, the literature does not provide coherent analyses of how these ambitions can be achieved. This paper demonstrates how a realist review can be applied to inform complex intervention development that spans different locations, organisations, professions, and care sectors. We applied and developed a realist review for the purposes of intervention development, using a three-stage process. (1) An iterative database search strategy (extending beyond criminal justice and offender health) and groups of academics, practitioners, and people with lived experience were used to identify explanatory accounts (n = 347). (2) From these accounts, we developed consolidated explanatory accounts (n = 75). (3) The identified interactions between practitioners and offenders (within their organisational, social, and cultural contexts) were specified in a conceptual platform. We also specify, step by step, how these explanatory accounts were documented, consolidated, and built into a conceptual platform. This addresses an important methodological gap for social scientists and intervention developers about how to develop and articulate programme and implementation theory underpinning complex interventions. An integrated person-centred system is proposed to improve collaborative mental health care for offenders with common mental health problems (near to and after release) by achieving consistency between the goals of different sectors and practitioners, enabling practitioners to apply scientific and experiential knowledge in working judiciously and reflectively, and building systems and aligning resources that are centred on offenders' health and social care needs. As part of a broader programme of work, a realist review can make an important contribution to the specification of theoretically informed interventions that have the potential to improve health outcomes. Our conceptual platform has potential application in related systems of health and social care where integrated, and person-centred care is a goal. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 12 | 46% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 62% |
| Scientists | 6 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 174 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 38 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 32 | 18% |
| Unknown | 34 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 39 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 20% |
| Psychology | 25 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Unknown | 42 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,372,131
of 24,702,628 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#495
of 1,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,202
of 279,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#13
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,702,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,778 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.