ArticleBMJ open2014
Understanding how appraisal of doctors produces its effects: a realist review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of narrative medicine on medical students' readiness for holistic care practice: A realist synthesis.Medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Pharmaceutical solutions implemented to improve mental health care pathways: a systematic realist review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Developing a role for patients and the public in the implementation of health and social care research evidence into practice: the PIPER study (Pathways to Implementation for Public Engagement in Research) realist evaluation protocol.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Understanding peer support among healthcare assistants delivering hospice care at home: a protocol for a realist review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Developing a quality and safety surveillance system: A protocol for a realist review and synthesis of the literature.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Realist Review Protocol into the Contexts and Mechanisms That Enable the Inclusion of Environmental Sustainability Outcomes in the Design of Lean Healthcare Improvement Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Review
- The contribution of leaders' and managers' attributes, values, principles, and behaviours to the sustainable implementation of Lean in healthcare: A realist review protocol.HRB open research · 2024Article
- Lost in translation: how can education about dementia be effectively integrated into medical school contexts? A realist synthesis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Understanding communication in community engagement for maternal and newborn health programmes in low- and middle-income countries: a realist review.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- Article
- In which context and for whom can interventions improve leadership of surgical trainees, surgeons and surgical teams and why: a realist review protocol.NIHR open research · 2023Article
- Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Review
- Multi-professional perceptions of clinical research delivery and the Clinical Research Nurse role: a realist review.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2022Article
- Designing a system for performance appraisal: balancing physicians' accountability and professional development.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Article
- Supervision training in healthcare: a realist synthesis.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2020Article
- The Discharge Communication Study: research protocol for a mixed methods study to investigate and triangulate discharge communication experiences of patients, GPs, and hospital professionals, alongside a corresponding discharge letter sample.BMC health services research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUK doctors are now required to participate in revalidation to maintain their licence to practise. Appraisal is a fundamental component of revalidation. However, objective evidence of appraisal changing doctors' behaviour and directly resulting in improved patient care is limited. In particular, it is not clear how the process of appraisal is supposed to change doctors' behaviour and improve clinical performance. The aim of this research is to understand how and why appraisal of doctors is supposed to produce its effect. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Realist review is a theory-driven interpretive approach to evidence synthesis. It applies realist logic of inquiry to produce an explanatory analysis of an intervention that is, what works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects. Using a realist review approach, an initial programme theory of appraisal will be developed by consulting with key stakeholders in doctors' appraisal in expert panels (ethical approval is not required), and by searching the literature to identify relevant existing theories. The search strategy will have a number of phases including a combination of: (1) electronic database searching, for example, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, ASSIA, (2) 'cited by' articles search, (3) citation searching, (4) contacting authors and (5) grey literature searching. The search for evidence will be iteratively extended and refocused as the review progresses. Studies will be included based on their ability to provide data that enable testing of the programme theory. Data extraction will be conducted, for example, by note taking and annotation at different review stages as is consistent with the realist approach. The evidence will be synthesised using realist logic to interrogate the final programme theory of the impact of appraisal on doctors' performance. The synthesis results will be written up according to RAMESES guidelines and disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol is registered with PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014007092.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.