Cited by 296Evaluation and Performance AssessmentQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Data Analysis and Synthesis Within a Realist Evaluation: Toward More Transparent Methodological Approaches

Open access
Gilmore, Brynne, McAuliffe, Eilish, Power, Jessica, Vallières, Frédérique·2019·International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Abstract

Realist evaluations are increasingly used in the study of complex health interventions. The methodological procedures applied within realist evaluations however are often inexplicit, prompting scholars to call for increased transparency and more detailed description within realist studies. This publication details the data analysis and synthesis process used within two realist evaluation studies of community health interventions taking place across Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya. Using data from several case studies across all three countries and the data analysis software NVivo, we describe in detail how data were analyzed and subsequently synthesized to refine middle-range theories. We conclude by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the approach taken, providing novel methodological recommendations. The aim of providing this detailed descriptive account of the analysis and synthesis in these two studies is to promote transparency and contribute to the advancement of realist evaluation methodologies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1609406919859754

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Gilmore, B., McAuliffe, E., Power, J., & Vallières, F.
Affiliations
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, College of Health and Agricultural Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Corresponding author
Gilmore, Brynne
Venue
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Published
2019-01-01
Volume
18
ISSN
1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2955563742
Cited by
296
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 2
FWCI
13.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Qualitative Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
H2020 Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Actions (grant agreement No 713279)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
realist evaluation, data analysis, data synthesis, middle-range theory, transparency, community health intervention, complex health interventions, qualitative data analysis, NVivo, methodological recommendations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review