BackgroundSystematic review methodologies can be harnessed to help researchers to understand and explain how complex interventions may work. Typically, when reviewing complex interventions, a review team will seek to understand the theories that underpin an intervention and the specific context for that intervention. A single published report from a research project does not typically contain this required level of detail. A review team may find it more useful to examine a “study cluster”; a group of related papers that explore and explain various features of a single project and thus supply necessary detail relating to theory and/or context.We sought to conduct a preliminary investigation, from a single case study review, of techniques required to identify a cluster of related research reports, to document the yield from such methods, and to outline a systematic methodology for cluster searching.MethodsIn a systematic review of community engagement we identified a relevant project – the Gay Men’s Task Force. From a single “key pearl citation” we conducted a series of related searches to find contextually or theoretically proximate documents. We followed up Citations, traced Lead authors, identified Unpublished materials, searched Google Scholar, tracked Theories, undertook ancestry searching for Early examples and followed up Related projects (embodied in the CLUSTER mnemonic).ResultsOur structured, formalised procedure for cluster searching identified useful reports that are not typically identified from topic-based searches on bibliographic databases. Items previously rejected by an initial sift were subsequently found to inform our understanding of underpinning theory (for example Diffusion of Innovations Theory), context or both. Relevant material included book chapters, a Web-based process evaluation, and peer reviewed reports of projects sharing a common ancestry. We used these reports to understand the context for the intervention and to explore explanations for its relative lack of success. Additional data helped us to challenge simplistic assumptions on the homogeneity of the target population.ConclusionsA single case study suggests the potential utility of cluster searching, particularly for reviews that depend on an understanding of context, e.g. realist synthesis. The methodology is transparent, explicit and reproducible. There is no reason to believe that cluster searching is not generalizable to other review topics. Further research should examine the contribution of the methodology beyond improved yield, to the final synthesis and interpretation, possibly by utilizing qualitative sensitivity analysis.

No abstract

Although patient and public involvement in research is a requirement for research funding in many countries, the knowledge base for how to effectively involve people—and evidence of the effectiveness of involvement—is weak. This article describes how methods used in participatory health research were used to involve patients, clients, providers and community health workers across all stages of a realist review. Sustained involvement enabled better identification of the components of the complex intervention of community-based peer support. It also challenged assumptions of how peer support is constructed, leading the review team to question whether the process of designing and implementing interventions has more influence on effectiveness than previously recognised in empirical studies. We conclude with a discussion on when sustained involvement should be used, and the challenges of incorporating it into the traditional researcher-led approach to systematic reviews.

BackgroundCommunity-based peer support (CBPS) has been proposed as a potentially promising approach to improve health literacy (HL) and reduce health inequalities. Peer support, however, is described as a public health intervention in search of a theory, and as yet there are no systematic reviews exploring why or how peer support works to improve HL.ObjectiveTo undertake a participatory realist synthesis to develop a better understanding of the potential for CBPS to promote better HL and reduce health inequalities.Data sourcesQualitative evidence syntheses, conceptual reviews and primary studies evaluating peer-support programmes; related studies that informed theoretical or contextual elements of the studies of interest were included. We conducted searches covering 1975 to October 2011 across Scopus, Global Health (including MEDLINE), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database (PQDT) [including the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Social Work Abstracts], The King’s Fund Database and Web of Knowledge, and the Institute of Development Studies supplementary strategies were used for the identification of grey literature. We developed a new approach to searching called ‘cluster searching’, which uses a variety of search techniques to identify papers or other research outputs that relate to a single study.Study eligibility criteriaStudies written in English describing CBPS research/evaluation, and related papers describing theory, were included.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsStudies were selected on the basis of relevance in the first instance. We first analysed within-programme articulation of theory and appraised for coherence. Cross-programme analysis was used to configure relationships among context, mechanisms and outcomes. Patterns were then identified and compared with theories relevant to HL and health inequalities to produce a middle-range theory.ResultsThe synthesis indicated that organisations, researchers and health professionals that adopt an authoritarian design for peer-support programmes risk limiting the ability of peer supporters (PSs) to exercise autonomy and use their experiential knowledge to deliver culturally tailored support. Conversely, when organisations take a negotiated approach to codesigning programmes, PSs are enabled to establish meaningful relationships with people in socially vulnerable groups. CBPS is facilitated when organisations prioritise the importance of assessing community needs; investigate root causes of poor health and well-being; allow adequate time for development of relationships and connections; value experiential cultural knowledge; and share power and control during all stages of design and implementation. The theory now needs to be empirically tested via further primary research.LimitationsAnalysis and synthesis were challenged by a lack of explicit links between peer support for marginalised groups and health inequalities; explicitly stated programme theory; inconsistent reporting of context and mechanism; poor reporting of intermediate process outcomes; and the use of theories aimed at individual-level behaviour change for community-based interventions.ConclusionsPeer-support programmes have the potential to improve HL and reduce health inequalities but potential is dependent upon the surrounding equity context. More explicit empirical research is needed, which establishes clearer links between peer-supported HL and health inequalities.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002297.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

In general, most women are familiar with the need to stop smoking when they are pregnant. In spite of this, many women find it difficult to stop. Using a phenomenographic approach, this study explored Swedish pregnant and post-pregnant women's ways of making sense of smoking during pregnancy. A total of 17 women who either smoked throughout pregnancy or stopped smoking during pregnancy were interviewed. Five different story types of how they are making sense of smoking during pregnancy were identified: smoking can be justified; will stop later; my smoking might hurt the baby; smoking is just given up; smoking must be taken charge of. Based on the study it is argued that the approach used in health education in relation to smoking cessation in antenatal care needs to move from information transfer and advice-giving to the creation of a dialogue. The starting point should be the woman's knowledge, concerns, rationalizations and prejudices. A model is suggested in which a woman may move in a space on three axes depending on life encounters, dialogue and reflections on meaning. The goal in health education would be to encourage movement along three axes: 'increase of self-efficacy towards control', 'increase awareness by reflection on meaning of the smoking issue' and 'avoidance of defense of the smoking behavior'.