Combining Realist approaches and Normalization Process Theory to understand implementation: a systematic review

Background: Realist approaches and Normalization Process Theory (NPT) have both gained significant traction in implementation research over the past 10 years. The aim of this study was therefore to explore how the approaches are combined to understand problems of implementation, to determine the degree of complementarity of the two approaches and to provide practical approaches for using them together. Methods: Systematic review of research studies combining Realist and NPT approaches. Realist methodology is concerned with understanding and explaining causation, that is, how and why policies, programmes and interventions achieve their effects. NPT is a theory of implementation that explains how practices become normalised. Databases searched (January 2020) were ASSIA, CINAHL, Health Research Premium Collection via Proquest (Family Health Database, Health & Medical Collection, Health Management Database, MEDLINE, Nursing & Allied Health Database, Psychology Database, Public Health Database) and PsycARTICLES. Studies were included if the author(s) stated they used both approaches: a scientific Realist perspective applying the principles of Pawson and Tilley’s Realist Evaluation or Pawson’s Realist Synthesis and Normalization Process Theory either solely or in addition to other theories. Two authors screened records; discrepancies were reviewed by a third screener. Data was extracted by three members of the team and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Results: Of 245 total records identified, 223 unique records were screened and 39 full-text papers were reviewed, identifying twelve papers for inclusion in the review. These papers represented eight different studies. Extent and methods of integration of the approaches varied. In most studies (6/8), Realist approaches were the main driver. NPT was mostly used to enhance the explanatory power of Realist analyses, informing development of elements of Contexts, Mechanisms and Outcomes (a common heuristic in realist work). Authors’ reflections on the integration of NPT and Realist approaches were limited. Conclusions: Using Realist and NPT approaches in combination can add explanatory power for understanding the implementation of interventions and programmes. Attention to detailed reporting on methods and analytical process when combining approaches, and appraisal of theoretical and practical utility is advised for advancing knowledge of applying these approaches in research

Achieving integrated treatment:a realist synthesis of service models and systems for co-existing serious mental health and substance use conditions

Approximately 30-50% of people with serious mental illness have co-existing drug/alcohol problems (COSMHAD), associated with adverse health/social care outcomes. UK guidelines advocate both co-occurring needs being met within mental health services but uncertainty remains about how to operationalise this to improve outcomes. Various unevaluated service configurations exist in the UK. A realist synthesis was undertaken to identify, test and refine programme theories (PTs) explaining how context shapes the mechanisms through which UK service models for COSMHAD work, for whom, and in what circumstances. Structured and iterative realist searches of 7 databases identified 5,099 records. A two-stage screening process identified 132 papers. Three broad contextual factors shaped COMSHAD services across 11 PTs: committed leadership; clear expectations regarding COSMAHD from mental health and substance use workforces; and clear care coordination processes. These contextual factors led to increased staff empathy, confidence, legitimisation and multidisciplinary ethos which improved care coordination, and increased people with COSMHAD’s motivations to work towards their goals. Our synthesis highlights that integrating COSMHAD care is complex and both individual and cultural behavioural shifts in leadership, workforce and service delivery is essential to ensure people with COSMHAD receive compassionate, trauma informed care that meets their needs

Achieving integrated treatment: a realist synthesis of service models and systems for co-existing serious mental health and substance use conditions.

Approximately 30-50% of people with serious mental illness have co-existing drug or alcohol problems (COSMHAD), associated with adverse health and social care outcomes. UK guidelines advocate both co-occurring needs being met within mental health services, but uncertainty remains about how to operationalise this to improve outcomes. Various unevaluated service configurations exist in the UK. A realist synthesis was done to identify, test, and refine programme theories of how context shapes the mechanisms through which UK service models for COSMHAD work, for whom, and in what circumstances. Structured and iterative realist searches of seven databases identified 5099 records. A two-stage screening process identified 132 papers. Three broad contextual factors shaped COSMHAD services across 11 programme theories: committed leadership, clear expectations regarding COSMHAD from mental health and substance use workforces, and clear care-coordination processes. These contextual factors led to increased staff empathy, confidence, legitimisation, and multidisciplinary ethos, which improved care coordination and increased the motivation of people with COSMHAD to work towards their goals. Our synthesis highlights that integrating COSMHAD care is complex, and both individual and cultural behavioural shifts in leadership, workforce, and service delivery are essential to ensure people with COSMHAD receive compassionate, trauma-informed care that meets their needs

Achieving integrated treatment: a realist synthesis of service models and systems for co-existing serious mental health and substance use conditions

Approximately 30–50% of people with serious mental illness have co-existing drug or alcohol problems (COSMHAD), associated with adverse health and social care outcomes. UK guidelines advocate both co-occurring needs being met within mental health services, but uncertainty remains about how to operationalise this to improve outcomes. Various unevaluated service configurations exist in the UK. A realist synthesis was done to identify, test, and refine programme theories of how context shapes the mechanisms through which UK service models for COSMHAD work, for whom, and in what circumstances. Structured and iterative realist searches of seven databases identified 5099 records. A two-stage screening process identified 132 papers. Three broad contextual factors shaped COSMHAD services across 11 programme theories: committed leadership, clear expectations regarding COSMHAD from mental health and substance use workforces, and clear care-coordination processes. These contextual factors led to increased staff empathy, confidence, legitimisation, and multidisciplinary ethos, which improved care coordination and increased the motivation of people with COSMHAD to work towards their goals. Our synthesis highlights that integrating COSMHAD care is complex, and both individual and cultural behavioural shifts in leadership, workforce, and service delivery are essential to ensure people with COSMHAD receive compassionate, trauma-informed care that meets their needs

Codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS): a protocol for integrating realist evaluation and an engineering-based systems approach

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Introduction: Transition following discharge from mental health hospital is high risk in terms of relapse, readmission and suicide. Discharge planning supports transition and reduces risk. It is a complex activity involving interacting systemic elements. The codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS) study aims to improve the process for people being discharged, their carers/supporters and staff who work in mental health services, by understanding, co-designing and evaluating implementation of a systemic approach to discharge planning. Methods and analysis: The MINDS study integrates realist research and an engineering-informed systems approach across three stages. Stage 1 applies realist review and evaluation using a systems approach to develop programme theories of discharge planning. Stage 2 uses an Engineering Better Care framework to codesign a novel systemic discharge intervention, which will be subjected to process and economic evaluation in stage 3. The programme theories and resulting care planning approach will be refined throughout the study ready for a future clinical trial. MINDS is co-led by an expert by experience, with researchers with lived experience co-leading each stage. Ethics and dissemination: MINDS stage 1 has received ethical approval from Yorkshire & The Humber—Bradford Leeds (Research Ethics Committee (22/YH/0122). Findings from MINDS will be disseminated via high-impact journal publications and conference presentations, including those with service user and mental health professional audiences. We will establish routes to engage with public and service user communities and National Health Service professionals including blogs, podcasts and short videos. Trial registration number: MINDS is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR 133013) https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR133013. The realist review protocol is registered on PROSPERO. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021293255.Peer reviewe

Codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS): a protocol for integrating realist evaluation and an engineering-based systems approach

Peer reviewed: TrueAcknowledgements: We would like to thank LEAG members including Hajara Begum, Katie Fillingham, June Hanshaw, John Lucas, Isaac Samuels, and Roger Talbot for their ongoing input across the MINDS project; helping to ensure the processes and outputs reflect the experiences and needs of people with lived experience and their supporters.IntroductionTransition following discharge from mental health hospital is high risk in terms of relapse, readmission and suicide. Discharge planning supports transition and reduces risk. It is a complex activity involving interacting systemic elements. The codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS) study aims to improve the process for people being discharged, their carers/supporters and staff who work in mental health services, by understanding, co-designing and evaluating implementation of a systemic approach to discharge planning.Methods and analysisThe MINDS study integrates realist research and an engineering-informed systems approach across three stages. Stage 1 applies realist review and evaluation using a systems approach to develop programme theories of discharge planning. Stage 2 uses an Engineering Better Care framework to codesign a novel systemic discharge intervention, which will be subjected to process and economic evaluation in stage 3. The programme theories and resulting care planning approach will be refined throughout the study ready for a future clinical trial. MINDS is co-led by an expert by experience, with researchers with lived experience co-leading each stage.Ethics and disseminationMINDS stage 1 has received ethical approval from Yorkshire &amp; The Humber—Bradford Leeds (Research Ethics Committee (22/YH/0122). Findings from MINDS will be disseminated via high-impact journal publications and conference presentations, including those with service user and mental health professional audiences. We will establish routes to engage with public and service user communities and National Health Service professionals including blogs, podcasts and short videos.Trial registration numberMINDS is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR 133013)https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR133013. The realist review protocol is registered on PROSPERO.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021293255.</jats:sec

Codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS): a protocol for integrating realist evaluation and an engineering-based systems approach.

IntroductionTransition following discharge from mental health hospital is high risk in terms of relapse, readmission and suicide. Discharge planning supports transition and reduces risk. It is a complex activity involving interacting systemic elements. The codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS) study aims to improve the process for people being discharged, their carers/supporters and staff who work in mental health services, by understanding, co-designing and evaluating implementation of a systemic approach to discharge planning.Methods and analysisThe MINDS study integrates realist research and an engineering-informed systems approach across three stages. Stage 1 applies realist review and evaluation using a systems approach to develop programme theories of discharge planning. Stage 2 uses an Engineering Better Care framework to codesign a novel systemic discharge intervention, which will be subjected to process and economic evaluation in stage 3. The programme theories and resulting care planning approach will be refined throughout the study ready for a future clinical trial. MINDS is co-led by an expert by experience, with researchers with lived experience co-leading each stage.Ethics and disseminationMINDS stage 1 has received ethical approval from Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds (Research Ethics Committee (22/YH/0122). Findings from MINDS will be disseminated via high-impact journal publications and conference presentations, including those with service user and mental health professional audiences. We will establish routes to engage with public and service user communities and National Health Service professionals including blogs, podcasts and short videos.Trial registration numberMINDS is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR 133013) https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR133013. The realist review protocol is registered on PROSPERO.Prospero registration numberCRD42021293255

Codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS): a protocol for integrating realist evaluation and an engineering-based systems approach

Introduction Transition following discharge from mental health hospital is high risk in terms of relapse, readmission and suicide. Discharge planning supports transition and reduces risk. It is a complex activity involving interacting systemic elements. The codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS) study aims to improve the process for people being discharged, their carers/supporters and staff who work in mental health services, by understanding, co-designing and evaluating implementation of a systemic approach to discharge planning.Methods and analysisThe MINDS study integrates realist research and an engineering-informed systems approach across three stages. Stage 1 applies realist review and evaluation using a systems approach to develop programme theories of discharge planning. Stage 2 uses an Engineering Better Care framework to codesign a novel systemic discharge intervention, which will be subjected to process and economic evaluation in stage 3. The programme theories and resulting care planning approach will be refined throughout the study ready for a future clinical trial. MINDS is co-led by an expert by experience, with researchers with lived experience co-leading each stage.Ethics and disseminationMINDS stage 1 has received ethical approval from Yorkshire & The Humber—Bradford Leeds (Research Ethics Committee (22/YH/0122). Findings from MINDS will be disseminated via high-impact journal publications and conference presentations, including those with service user and mental health professional audiences. We will establish routes to engage with public and service user communities and National Health Service professionals including blogs, podcasts and short videos.Trial registration numberMINDS is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR 133013)https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR133013. The realist review protocol is registered on PROSPERO.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021293255.</p