Realist Reviews: How They Differ from Systematic Reviews & Healthcare Benefits

Realist reviews are a distinct approach within systematic reviews, characterized by their focus on understanding the mechanisms through which interventions work, the contexts in which they are effective, and the outcomes they produce. Unlike traditional systematic reviews that primarily assess the effectiveness of interventions, realist reviews delve into the underlying causal mechanisms and contextual factors that influence outcomes. This approach is particularly beneficial in healthcare research, where interventions often operate within complex systems. The following sections outline the key differences between realist reviews and other systematic review approaches, as well as the benefits of using realist reviews in healthcare research.

While realist reviews offer significant advantages in understanding complex healthcare interventions, they also face challenges. Critics argue that the approach can be overly philosophical and less methodologically rigorous, potentially limiting its practical applicability. Additionally, the iterative and theory-driven nature of realist reviews can be resource-intensive and time-consuming, which may pose challenges for researchers with limited resources. Despite these challenges, the ability of realist reviews to provide a deeper understanding of how and why interventions work makes them a valuable tool in healthcare research.