ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Hybrid Service Delivery for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations working with adults with learning disabilities and/or autism: a realist review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelivery of health and care services using a combination of remote and/or in-person channels and digital and/or traditional tools (Hybrid Service Delivery, HSD) is increasingly seen as a way of improving quality and affordability, improving access, personalisation and sustainability, and reducing inequalities. Across the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector (VCSE), using a combination of remote and/or in-person channels and digital and/or traditional tools (HSD) has enabled the essential provision of services for people who have learning disabilities and/or autistic (LDA). However, it is unclear how different tools and channels have been used, what worked well or not well, for whom, and in what circumstances. The aim of this realist review is to explore how VCSE organisations can effectively use digital technologies alongside or instead of in-person activity to provide social care services to adults with learning disabilities and/or autism. This review protocol is presented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P).
methodsWe will conduct a participatory realist review. Following realist review methodology, and involving people with LDA and organisations who deliver services to them, we will define the scope of the review/theory development, search for and appraise evidence, extract and synthesise findings, and develop the narrative. Using a developed strategy, electronic databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, SCOPUS, Social Science Citation Index and Social Policy and Practice) will be searched. A data extraction table will be used to assist in sifting, sorting and organising relevant information from identified studies. For each proposition statement, relevant data from the identified literature will be synthesised and compared with the proposed theory to develop an understanding of how, why and when hybrid delivery works in different settings with different populations. DISCUSSION: This review aims to collate and synthesise evidence relating to hybrid service delivery in VCSE organisations to provide social care services to LDA adults. By conducting a participatory realist review, we anticipate that the findings will lead to a greater understanding of contextual factors and therefore more relevant recommendations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024457161.
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.