Combining realist evaluation and transformative evaluation to advance research in palliative care: The case of end of life companionship

Author:

Downey John1ORCID,Fornasiero Mauro1,Cooper Susan2,Bassett Lynn3,Doherty Margaret3,Dubeibe Fong Alejandra3,Bradley Natasha4,Cornwall Jon5

Affiliation:

1. Sport, Health, and Wellbeing, Plymouth Marjon University, UK

2. Institute of Education, Plymouth Marjon University, UK

3. The Centre for the Art of Dying Well), St Mary’s University, UK

4. Centre for Health & Clinical Research, University of the West of England, UK

5. Memberships Department, St Vincent De Paul, Englang and Wales

Abstract

Background: Palliative care requires innovative methods to understand what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why. Realist evaluation has become one prominent approach due to its preoccupation with building, and testing, causal theories to explain the influence of contextual factors on outcomes. Undertaking realist evaluation is not without challenges and may amplify issues of underrepresentation, disempower those working in palliative care, and produce results with poor ecological validity. Complementary approaches are needed which mitigate these challenges, whilst producing credible findings that advances knowledge. Purpose: In this article it is outlined how realist evaluation provides a toolkit to advance research to explain, and empirically test, the complex contours of palliative care. Moreover, it is proposed that transformative evaluation can provide a catalyst to engage and empower those within palliative care, create the opportunity for care transformation, and produce more informed and authentic theories. Discussion: Contemporary issues in palliative care pertain to the complexity of palliative care, the insufficiency of experimental designs alone, and the challenges of achieving inclusive research participation. In this article it is argued that theory led, participatory, opportunistic and naturalistic approaches can provide an antidote to the issues in the literature. The combination also mitigates many methodological critiques of the individual approaches, by increasing the transformative potential of realist evaluation, and explanatory potential of transformative evaluation.

Funder

St Mary’s University

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3