↓ Skip to main content

Realist explanatory theory building method for social epidemiology: a protocol for a mixed method multilevel study of neighbourhood context and postnatal depression

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
247 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Realist explanatory theory building method for social epidemiology: a protocol for a mixed method multilevel study of neighbourhood context and postnatal depression
Published in
SpringerPlus, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

John G Eastwood, Bin B Jalaludin, Lynn A Kemp

Abstract

A recent criticism of social epidemiological studies, and multi-level studies in particular has been a paucity of theory. We will present here the protocol for a study that aims to build a theory of the social epidemiology of maternal depression. We use a critical realist approach which is trans-disciplinary, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative traditions, and that assumes both ontological and hierarchical stratification of reality. We describe a critical realist Explanatory Theory Building Method comprising of an: 1) emergent phase, 2) construction phase, and 3) confirmatory phase. A concurrent triangulated mixed method multilevel cross-sectional study design is described. The Emergent Phase uses: interviews, focus groups, exploratory data analysis, exploratory factor analysis, regression, and multilevel Bayesian spatial data analysis to detect and describe phenomena. Abductive and retroductive reasoning will be applied to: categorical principal component analysis, exploratory factor analysis, regression, coding of concepts and categories, constant comparative analysis, drawing of conceptual networks, and situational analysis to generate theoretical concepts. The Theory Construction Phase will include: 1) defining stratified levels; 2) analytic resolution; 3) abductive reasoning; 4) comparative analysis (triangulation); 5) retroduction; 6) postulate and proposition development; 7) comparison and assessment of theories; and 8) conceptual frameworks and model development. The strength of the critical realist methodology described is the extent to which this paradigm is able to support the epistemological, ontological, axiological, methodological and rhetorical positions of both quantitative and qualitative research in the field of social epidemiology. The extensive multilevel Bayesian studies, intensive qualitative studies, latent variable theory, abductive triangulation, and Inference to Best Explanation provide a strong foundation for Theory Construction. The study will contribute to defining the role that realism and mixed methods can play in explaining the social determinants and developmental origins of health and disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 242 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 24%
Student > Master 39 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 12%
Researcher 21 9%
Other 14 6%
Other 48 19%
Unknown 37 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 54 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 36 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 8%
Psychology 15 6%
Other 58 23%
Unknown 43 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 December 2020.
All research outputs
#15,104,505
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#695
of 1,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,539
of 320,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#38
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 320,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.