Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39157923›Full record

ReviewMedical education2025

Realist analysis of qualitative data in health professions education research.

Charlotte E Rees, Dominic W Proctor, Van N B Nguyen, Ella Ottrey, Karen L Mattick

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Charlotte E ReesSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine & Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4828-1422
Dominic W ProctorRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0654-3420
Van N B NguyenMonash Nursing & Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0982-2532
Ella OttreyMonash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education (MCSHE), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2979-548X
Karen L MattickUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1800-773X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQualitative realist analysis is gaining in popularity in health professions education research (HPER) as part of theory-driven program evaluation. Although realist approaches such as syntheses and evaluations typically advocate mixed methods, qualitative data dominate currently. Various forms of qualitative analysis have been articulated in HPER, yet realist analysis has not. Although realist analysis is interpretive, it moves beyond description to explain generative causation employing retroductive theorising. Ultimately, it attempts to build and/or 'test' (confirm, refute or refine) theory about how, why, for whom, when and to what extent programs work using the context-mechanism-outcome configuration (CMOC) heuristic. This paper aims to help readers better critique, conduct and report qualitative realist analysis. REALIST ANALYSIS

methodsWe describe four fundamentals of qualitative realist analysis: (1) simultaneous data collection/analysis; (2) retroductive theorising; (3) configurational analysis (involving iterative phases of identifying CMOCs, synthesising CMOCs into demi-regularities and translating demi-regularities into program theory); and (4) realist analysis quality (relevance, rigour, richness). Next, we provide a critical analysis of realist analyses employed in 15 HPER outputs-three evaluations and 12 syntheses. Finally, drawing on our understandings of realist literature and our experiences of conducting qualitative realist analysis (both evaluations and syntheses), we articulate three common analysis challenges (coding, consolidation and mapping) and strategies to mitigate these challenges (teamwork, reflexivity and consultation, use of data analysis software and graphical representations of program theory).

conclusionsBased on our critical analysis of the literature and realist analysis experiences, we encourage researchers, peer reviewers and readers to better understand qualitative realist analysis fundamentals. Realist analysts should draw on relevant realist reporting standards and literature on realist analysis to improve the quality and reporting of realist analysis. Through better understanding the common challenges and mitigation strategies for realist analysis, we can collectively improve the quality of realist analysis in HPER.

Indexed as

Health OccupationsQualitative ResearchResearch DesignHumansProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID39157923
PMCPMC11976211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.