RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Realist evaluation is increasingly used in health services and other fields of research and evaluation. No previous standards exist for reporting realist evaluations. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES II project. The project's aim is to produce initial reporting standards for realist evaluations. METHODS: We purposively recruited a maximum variety sample of an international group of experts in realist evaluation to our online Delphi panel. Panel members came from a variety of disciplines, sectors and policy fields. We prepared the briefing materials for our Delphi panel by summarising the most recent literature on realist evaluations to identify how and why rigour had been demonstrated and where gaps in expertise and rigour were evident. We also drew on our collective experience as realist evaluators, in training and supporting realist evaluations, and on the RAMESES email list to help us develop the briefing materials. Through discussion within the project team, we developed a list of issues related to quality that needed to be addressed when carrying out realist evaluations. These were then shared with the panel members and their feedback was sought. Once the panel members had provided their feedback on our briefing materials, we constructed a set of items for potential inclusion in the reporting standards and circulated these online to panel members. Panel members were asked to rank each potential item twice on a 7-point Likert scale, once for relevance and once for validity. They were also encouraged to provide free text comments. RESULTS: We recruited 35 panel members from 27 organisations across six countries from nine different disciplines. Within three rounds our Delphi panel was able to reach consensus on 20 items that should be included in the reporting standards for realist evaluations. The overall response rates for all items for rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 94 %, 76 % and 80 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: These reporting standards for realist evaluations have been developed by drawing on a range of sources. We hope that these standards will lead to greater consistency and rigour of reporting and make realist evaluation reports more accessible, usable and helpful to different stakeholders.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648 · see citing works
Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance
Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., Moore, L., O'Cathain, A., Tinati, T., Wight, D., et al. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h1258 · Cited by 6,204 · see citing works
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373 · see citing works
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755 · see citing works
RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-21 · Cited by 1,374 · see citing works
Self-citationJagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Cargo, M., Green, L. W., Herbert, C. P., & Pluye, P. (2015) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1 · Cited by 758 · see citing works
Self-citationMarchal, B., van Belle, S., van Olmen, J., Hoerée, T., & Kegels, G. (2012) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389012442444 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12095 · Cited by 385 · see citing works
Self-citationTheories of Change and Realistic Evaluation: Peas in a Pod or Apples and Oranges?
Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M. (2007) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389007082129 · Cited by 383 · see citing works
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., & Pawson, R. (2014) · Health Services and Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hsdr02300 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jagosh, J. (2019) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044451 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Self-citationQuerstret, D., Morison, L., Dickinson, S., Cropley, M., & John, M. (2020) · International Journal of Stress Management · doi:10.1037/str0000165 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
Radomski, A. D., Wozney, L., McGrath, P., Huguet, A., Hartling, L., Dyson, M. P., Bennett, K., & Newton, A. S. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/11128 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“This realist synthesis was conducted using steps recommended by Pawson and Tilley [27,28] and is reported in accordance with the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES II) [29].”
MethodBitter, N., Roeg, D., van Nieuwenhuizen, C., & van Weeghel, J. (2020) · Community Mental Health Journal · doi:10.1007/s10597-020-00561-3 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Pham, Q., Cafazzo, J. A., & Feifer, A. (2017) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/resprot.8051 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Coleman, S., Wright, J. M., Nixon, J., Schoonhoven, L., Twiddy, M., & Greenhalgh, J. (2020) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01084-x · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationLawson, L., Cooper, M., Tolley, C., Hand, A., & Nazar, H. (2025) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06123-0 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“It builds a programme theory based on assumptions of how an intervention works and its expected impacts, refined using empirical evidence [29, 30].”
Gulliver, A., Morse, A. R., Wilson, N., Sargent, G., & Banfield, M. (2018) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.03.001 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Simulated patient judgements of medical student performance in OSCEs: A realist evaluation
El-Sherif, A., Lim, J. J., & Roberts, C. (2026) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2026.2641759 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wong, G., Westhorp, G., Manzano, A., Greenhalgh, J., Jagosh, J., & Greenhalgh, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University of Leeds (GB)
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wong, Geoff
- Venue
- BMC Medicine
- Published
- 2016-06-24
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 96-96
- ISSN
- 1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4920991
- OpenAlex
- W2464700444
- Cited by
- 880
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 111 · 2025: 124 · 2024: 141 · 2023: 116 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 38.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Dartmouth College
- Northumbria University
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (HS&DR/14/19/19, NF-SI-0512-10031, 10/1008/07)
- University of Exeter
- University College London
- University of Leeds
- University of Glasgow
- Queen's University Belfast
- Australian Institute of Criminology
- University of South Australia
- Charles Darwin University
- Universiteit Maastricht
- Bangor University
- Queen's University
- National Institutes of Health
- Health Services Research Programme
- Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
- National Institute on Aging
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- realist evaluation, reporting guidelines, Ramesses II, consensus development, Delphi panel, health service evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Health Services Research, Humans, Publications, Guidelines as Topic, Consensus
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
