ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Towards realist-informed ripple effects mapping (RREM): positioning the approach.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation and systems impact of a systems-based health promotion programme at Danish vocational schools: results after 2-years follow-up.BMC public health · 2026Trial
- Creating a meta-REM map: pragmatic improvements to ripple effects mapping methodology used to support evaluations of complex public health systems.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation approaches such as ripple effects mapping (REM) and realist evaluation have emerged as popular methodologies to evidence impact, and the processes of change within public health as part of whole systems approaches. Despite the various examples of their implementation across different evaluation settings, there has been little or no evidence of how they might be effective when combined.
methodsWith REM's potential to pragmatically illustrate impact, and realist evaluation's strength to identify how and why impacts emerge, this paper develops a rationale and process for their amalgamation. Following this, we outline a realist-informed ripple effects mapping (RREM) protocol drawing upon a physical activity based case study in Essex that may be suitable for application within evaluation settings in a range of public health, whole system and physical activity settings. DISCUSSION: Combining these two approaches has the potential to more effectively illuminate the impacts that we see within public health and whole system approaches and initiatives. What is more, given the complexity often imbued within these approaches and initiatives, they hold capability for also capturing the causal mechanisms that explain these impacts.
conclusionsIt is our conclusion that when combined, this novel approach may help to inspire future research as well as more effective evaluation of public health and whole system approaches. This is crucial if we are to foster a culture for learning, refinement and reflection.
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.