» Articles » PMID: 25885787

What's in a Mechanism? Development of a Key Concept in Realist Evaluation

Overview
Journal Implement Sci
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2015 Apr 18
PMID 25885787
Citations 275
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The idea that underlying, generative mechanisms give rise to causal regularities has become a guiding principle across many social and natural science disciplines. A specific form of this enquiry, realist evaluation is gaining momentum in the evaluation of complex social interventions. It focuses on 'what works, how, in which conditions and for whom' using context, mechanism and outcome configurations as opposed to asking whether an intervention 'works'. Realist evaluation can be difficult to codify and requires considerable researcher reflection and creativity. As such there is often confusion when operationalising the method in practice. This article aims to clarify and further develop the concept of mechanism in realist evaluation and in doing so aid the learning of those operationalising the methodology.

Discussion: Using a social science illustration, we argue that disaggregating the concept of mechanism into its constituent parts helps to understand the difference between the resources offered by the intervention and the ways in which this changes the reasoning of participants. This in turn helps to distinguish between a context and mechanism. The notion of mechanisms 'firing' in social science research is explored, with discussions surrounding how this may stifle researchers' realist thinking. We underline the importance of conceptualising mechanisms as operating on a continuum, rather than as an 'on/off' switch. The discussions in this article will hopefully progress and operationalise realist methods. This development is likely to occur due to the infancy of the methodology and its recent increased profile and use in social science research. The arguments we present have been tested and are explained throughout the article using a social science illustration, evidencing their usability and value.

Citing Articles

BREATHLEssness in INDIA (BREATHE-INDIA): realist review to develop explanatory programme theory about breathlessness self-management in India.

Clark J, Salins N, Sherigar M, Williams S, Pearson M, Rao S NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2025; 35(1):13.

PMID: 40082437 PMC: 11906595. DOI: 10.1038/s41533-025-00420-2.


Understanding how midwife-led continuity of care can be implemented and under what circumstances: a realist review.

Simmelink R, Neppelenbroek E, Pouwels A, van der Lee N, Pajkrt E, Ziesemer K BMJ Open. 2025; 15(2):e091968.

PMID: 39979052 PMC: 11842984. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091968.


How integrated knowledge translation worked to reduce federal policy barriers to the implementation of medication abortion in Canada: a realist evaluation.

Munro S, Wahl K, Dunn S, Devane C, Li L, Norman W Implement Sci Commun. 2025; 6(1):16.

PMID: 39901300 PMC: 11792738. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-025-00694-0.


The contribution of leaders' and managers' attributes, values, principles, and behaviours to the sustainable implementation of Lean in healthcare: A realist review protocol.

Keown A, Teeling S, McNamara M HRB Open Res. 2025; 7:54.

PMID: 39897597 PMC: 11786105. DOI: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13933.1.


Young Adults Rehabilitation experiences and Needs following Stroke (YARNS): A scoping review of the rehabilitation care experiences and outcomes of young adults post-stroke.

Chandler C, Clarissa C, Putri A, Aviles L, Choi H, Hewitt J PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0279523.

PMID: 39888946 PMC: 11785345. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279523.


References
1.
Murray S, Kendall M, Boyd K, Sheikh A . Illness trajectories and palliative care. BMJ. 2005; 330(7498):1007-11. PMC: 557152. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.330.7498.1007. View

2.
Vassilev I, Rogers A, Kennedy A, Koetsenruijter J . The influence of social networks on self-management support: a metasynthesis. BMC Public Health. 2014; 14:719. PMC: 4223639. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-719. View

3.
Berwick D . The science of improvement. JAMA. 2008; 299(10):1182-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.10.1182. View

4.
Murtagh F, Preston M, Higginson I . Patterns of dying: palliative care for non-malignant disease. Clin Med (Lond). 2004; 4(1):39-44. PMC: 4954272. DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.4-1-39. View

5.
Jagosh J, Macaulay A, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush P, Henderson J . Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012; 90(2):311-46. PMC: 3460206. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x. View