Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26470794›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

The three stages of building and testing mid-level theories in a realist RCT: a theoretical and methodological case-example.

Farah Jamal, Adam Fletcher, Nichola Shackleton, Diana Elbourne, Russell Viner, Chris Bonell

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Farah JamalDepartment of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, 18 Woburn Square, London, WC1H 0NR, UK. F.Jamal@ioe.ac.uk.
Adam FletcherSchool of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK. FletcherA@cardiff.ac.uk.
Nichola ShackletonUCL Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. Nicholashackleton@hotmail.com.
Diana ElbourneMedical Statistics Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. Diana.Elbourne@lshtm.ac.uk.
Russell VinerUCL Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. R.viner@ucl.ac.uk.
Chris BonellDepartment of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, 18 Woburn Square, London, WC1H 0NR, UK. C.bonell@ioe.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health 12/153/60Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of social interventions are often criticised as failing to open the 'black box' whereby they only address questions about 'what works' without explaining the underlying processes of implementation and mechanisms of action, and how these vary by contextual characteristics of person and place. Realist RCTs are proposed as an approach to evaluation science that addresses these gaps while preserving the strengths of RCTs in providing evidence with strong internal validity in estimating effects.

methodsIn the context of growing interest in designing and conducting realist trials, there is an urgent need to offer a worked example to provide guidance on how such an approach might be practically taken forward. The aim of this paper is to outline a three-staged theoretical and methodological process of undertaking a realist RCT using the example of the evaluation of a whole-school restorative intervention aiming to reduce aggression and bullying in English secondary schools. DISCUSSION: First, informed by the findings of our initial pilot trial and sociological theory, we elaborate our theory of change and specific a priori hypotheses about how intervention mechanisms interact with context to produce outcomes. Second, we describe how we will use emerging findings from the integral process evaluation within the RCT to refine, and add to, these a priori hypotheses before the collection of quantitative, follow-up data. Third, we will test our hypotheses using a combination of process and outcome data via quantitative analyses of effect mediation (examining mechanisms) and moderation (examining contextual contingencies). The results are then used to refine and further develop the theory of change.

conclusionThe aim of the realist RCT approach is thus not merely to assess whether the intervention is effective or not, but to develop empirically informed mid-range theory through a three-stage process. There are important implications for those involved with reporting and reviewing RCTs, including the use of new, iterative protocols.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10751359 (Registered 11 March 2014).

Indexed as

Research DesignAdaptation, PsychologicalAdolescentAdolescent BehaviorAggressionBullyingChildChild BehaviorEndpoint DeterminationEnglandFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleProgram EvaluationStudent Health Services

Identifiers

PMID26470794
PMCPMC4608279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.