首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Searching for Programme theories for a realist evaluation: a case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search
【24h】

Searching for Programme theories for a realist evaluation: a case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search

机译:寻找人类评估的程序理论:学术数据库搜索和简单的谷歌搜索的案例研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Realist methodologies are increasingly being used to evaluate complex interventions in health and social care. Programme theory (ideas and assumptions of how a particular intervention works) development is the first step in a realist evaluation or a realist synthesis, with literature reviews providing important evidence to support this. Deciding how to search for programme theories is challenging and there is limited guidance available. Using an example of identifying programme theories for a realist evaluation of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments in clinical practice, the authors explore and compare several different approaches to literature searching and highlight important methodological considerations for those embarking on a programme theory review. We compared the performance of an academic database search with a simple Google search and developed an optimised search strategy for the identification primary references (i.e. documents providing the clearest examples of programme theories) associated with the use of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments (PU-RAIs). We identified the number of primary references and the total number of references retrieved per source. We then calculated the number needed to read (NNR) expressed as the total number of titles and abstracts screened to identify one relevant reference from each source. The academic database search (comprising CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, HMIC, Medline) identified 2 /10 primary references with a NNR of 1395.The Google search identified 7/10 primary references with a NNR of 10.1. The combined NNR was 286.3. The optimised search combining Google and CINAHL identified 10/10 primary references with a NNR of 40.2. The striking difference between the efficiency of the review’s academic database and Google searches in finding relevant references prompted an in-depth comparison of the two types of search. The findings indicate the importance of including grey literature sources such as Google in this particular programme theory search, while acknowledging the need for transparency of methods. Further research is needed to facilitate improved guidance for programme theory searches to enhance practice in the realist field and to save researcher time and therefore resource.
机译:现实主义方法越来越多地用于评估健康和社会护理的复杂干预措施。程序理论(特定干预工程方式的思路和假设)开发是现实主义评估或现实主义综合的第一步,文学审查提供了支持这一点的重要证据。决定如何搜索计划理论是具有挑战性的,可提供有限的指导。利用识别临床实践中压力溃疡风险评估工具的现实评估程序理论的例子,提交人探讨了文学搜索的几种不同方法,并突出了对计划理论审查开始的人的重要方法考虑。我们将学术数据库搜索的性能与简单的谷歌搜索进行了比较,并为使用压力溃疡风险评估仪器提供了相关的主要参考(即提供了节目理论的最清晰示例)的优化搜索策略(Pu-Rais )。我们确定了每个源检索的主要引用的数量和总引用总数。然后,我们计算了读取(NNR)所需的数量,表示为筛选的标题总数和摘要,以识别来自每个来源的一个相关参考。学术数据库搜索(包括CINAHL,Cochrane图书馆,EMBASE,HMIC,MEDLINE)确定了2/10个主要引用,NNR为1395.Google搜索标识了10.1的NNR的7/10主要参考。合并的NNR为286.3。合并谷歌和CINAHL的优化搜索标识了40.2的NNR的10/10主要引用。评论的学术数据库和谷歌搜索在查找相关参考方面的效率之间的突出差异提示了深入的两种搜索的比较。该发现表明包括灰色文献来源的重要性,例如谷歌在这个特定的计划理论搜索中,同时承认对方法的透明度的需求。需要进一步研究以促进计划理论的改进指导,搜查在现实主义领域的实践中加强实践,并拯救研究人员时间和资源。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号