The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Searching for Programme Theories for a realist evaluation: A case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1186/s12874-020-01084-x · Paper page
Abstract
Background 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.Methods 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.Results 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. Conclusion 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.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
Stansfield, C., Dickson, K., & Bangpan, M. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9 · Cited by 122
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Coleman, S., WRIGHT, J. M., NIXON, J., SCHOONHOVEN, L., TWIDDY, M., & GREENHALGH, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Leeds (GB)
- University of Leeds
- University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
- University of Hull (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Coleman, Susanne
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2020-07-27
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 217-217
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7450563
- OpenAlex
- W3044445168
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 1.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (PDF-2016-09-054)
- Research Trainees Coordinating Centre (PDF 2016-09-054)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- program theory, realist evaluation, literature searching, Google search, number needed to read, grey literature, complex interventions
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Publications, Databases, Factual, MEDLINE
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