Instructions on Composing Literature Reviews
In the realm of research, two types of reviews stand out for their unique approaches: realist reviews and systematic reviews. While both are valuable tools for understanding complex interventions, they differ significantly in their focus and methodological approach.
Purpose and Focus
A systematic review focuses on evaluating the overall effectiveness or impact of an intervention, using explicit inclusion criteria and a rigorous risk of bias assessment to minimize bias. On the other hand, a realist review seeks to understand how, why, and in what contexts complex interventions work or fail. It has an exploratory rather than judgmental emphasis, focusing on mechanisms, contextual factors, and program theories.
Question Formulation
Systematic reviews start with a narrowly defined research question, often about the intervention's effectiveness. In contrast, realist reviews involve negotiation with stakeholders and focus on theory-driven questions about causation and context.
Evidence and Data
Systematic reviews seek exhaustive identification of published and unpublished studies using rigorous search strategies, focusing on quantitative data and risk of bias. Realist reviews, however, use multiple types of evidence, including grey literature, qualitative and quantitative studies, with iterative searching to refine program theories.
Analysis and Synthesis
Systematic reviews often aim for quantitative meta-analysis or structured narrative synthesis based on study quality. Realist reviews provide a narrative, theory-driven, explanatory synthesis that integrates social theory and empirical evidence to develop an understanding of mechanisms and context.
When to Use Each Approach
A realist review is most appropriate when evaluating complex social or health interventions where outcomes depend on how participants interact with components of the intervention within specific social or contextual settings. It is particularly useful when understanding the mechanism of action and contextual factors is crucial for policy or implementation decisions, such as in health and social care programs, educational interventions, or community initiatives.
In contrast, a systematic review is more suitable when the goal is to assess the overall effectiveness of an intervention across studies with methodological rigor.
In summary, choose a realist review when the goal is to unpack "how and why" complex interventions work in particular contexts; choose a systematic review when the goal is to assess "whether" an intervention works across studies with methodological rigor.
For researchers and policymakers working with complex interventions, understanding the differences between realist and systematic reviews can help guide decisions about which approach is most appropriate for their specific needs.
Researchers and policymakers can embrace online education and learning by leveraging both realist and systematic reviews when working with complex interventions. While a systematic review focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention across multiple studies with methodological rigor, a realist review delves into understanding the mechanisms, contextual factors, and circumstances under which complex interventions work or fail. This exploratory approach is particularly beneficial for education-and-self-development programs, as it sheds light on how and why these interventions work effectively in specific settings.
