↓ Skip to main content

RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
81 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
475 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
635 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoff Wong, Gill Westhorp, Ana Manzano, Joanne Greenhalgh, Justin Jagosh, Trish Greenhalgh

Abstract

Realist evaluation is increasingly used in health services and other fields of research and evaluation. No previous standards exist for reporting realist evaluations. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES II project. The project's aim is to produce initial reporting standards for realist evaluations. We purposively recruited a maximum variety sample of an international group of experts in realist evaluation to our online Delphi panel. Panel members came from a variety of disciplines, sectors and policy fields. We prepared the briefing materials for our Delphi panel by summarising the most recent literature on realist evaluations to identify how and why rigour had been demonstrated and where gaps in expertise and rigour were evident. We also drew on our collective experience as realist evaluators, in training and supporting realist evaluations, and on the RAMESES email list to help us develop the briefing materials. Through discussion within the project team, we developed a list of issues related to quality that needed to be addressed when carrying out realist evaluations. These were then shared with the panel members and their feedback was sought. Once the panel members had provided their feedback on our briefing materials, we constructed a set of items for potential inclusion in the reporting standards and circulated these online to panel members. Panel members were asked to rank each potential item twice on a 7-point Likert scale, once for relevance and once for validity. They were also encouraged to provide free text comments. We recruited 35 panel members from 27 organisations across six countries from nine different disciplines. Within three rounds our Delphi panel was able to reach consensus on 20 items that should be included in the reporting standards for realist evaluations. The overall response rates for all items for rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 94 %, 76 % and 80 %, respectively. These reporting standards for realist evaluations have been developed by drawing on a range of sources. We hope that these standards will lead to greater consistency and rigour of reporting and make realist evaluation reports more accessible, usable and helpful to different stakeholders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 635 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 627 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 119 19%
Researcher 91 14%
Student > Master 77 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 5%
Other 29 5%
Other 113 18%
Unknown 174 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 110 17%
Social Sciences 106 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 79 12%
Psychology 31 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 3%
Other 80 13%
Unknown 211 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2023.
All research outputs
#862,463
of 25,743,152 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#612
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,410
of 369,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#7
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,743,152 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.