A Realist Review Protocol on the Contribution of&nbsp; Mental Health First Aider Programmes to Staff Wellbeing within Hospital and associated healthcare settings

Dolores Donegan; Sean Paul Teeling; Martin McNamara

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.14318.2

Home Browse A Realist Review Protocol on the Contribution of Mental Health First...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Revised

A Realist Review Protocol on the Contribution of Mental Health First Aider Programmes to Staff Wellbeing within Hospital and associated healthcare settings

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Previously titled: "A Realist Review Protocol on the Contribution of a Mental Health First Aider Programme to Staff Health and Wellbeing within an Irish Hospital Network"

Dolores Donegan¹, Sean Paul Teeling ^1-3, Martin McNamara^1,3

PUBLISHED 03 Apr 2026

Author details Author details

¹ UCD School of Nursing and Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
² Centre for Person-Centered Practice Research, Queen Margaret University School of Health Sciences, Musselburgh, Scotland, EH21 6UU, UK
³ UCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Health Systems, University College Dublin., Dublin, D04 V1W8, Ireland

Dolores Donegan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Sean Paul Teeling
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Martin McNamara
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

Staff wellbeing is a growing concerns in healthcare settings, where increased workload, emotional demand, and organisational pressures contribute to stress, burnout, and reduced psychological safety. Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training is an evidence-based programme designed to support early recognition of mental distress, provide initial reassurance, and facilitate signposting to appropriate help. Its specific contribution to staff wellbeing within hospital and associated healthcare settings, however, remains underexplored. This paper presents a protocol for a realist review that will examine how, why, and in what contexts an MHFA programme may support staff wellbeing within hospital and associated healthcare settings.

Table 1.

PICO (Population, Intervention, Context, Outcomes) framework.

PICO element Key concept Inclusion/Exclusion criteria Population Healthcare Staff in hospitals and related healthcare settings Inclusion: Healthcare Staff in hospitals and related healthcare settings who have participated in, delivered, or been exposed to MHFA programmesInclusion: Studies from adjacent healthcare contexts (e.g., community or specialist settings) will be considered where they provide transferable explanatory insight relevant to hospital staff wellbeingExclusion: Healthcare Staff in hospitals and related healthcare settings who have not participated in, delivered, or been exposed to MHFA programmes Intervention Mental Health First aid Training and associated Implementation approaches Included: Mental Health First aid Training and associated Implementation approaches Context Time Inclusion: Publications 2010–2026. Limiting the search will support access to more recent date research articles Language Inclusion: Publications in English Hospitals and related healthcare organisational settings Inclusion: Hospitals and related healthcare organisational settings, including leadership support, team culture, psychological safety, stigma, and implementation conditionsInclusion: Studies from adjacent healthcare contexts will be considered where they provide transferable explanatory insights Outcome Proximal Confidence to provide peer support Reduce mental health stigma Improved recognition of mental distress Intermediate Help seeking behaviours Psychological safety Perceived Organisational Support Distal Patterns of absenteeism or retention Use of Staff Supports Broader Impacts on staff wellbeing

Methods

This protocol for a realist review will follow RAMESES standards to examine the contribution of MHFA training to staff health and wellbeing. The review will proceed through five stages: (1) clarifying the scope of the review; (2) developing initial programme theories; (3) searching for evidence; (4) extracting and synthesising data using realist logic; and (5) refining the programme theories. An expert panel will be convened to support the development and refinement of the programme theories as the review progresses. Conclusions This realist review protocol will guide the development of context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) configurations to explain how MHFA training may operate within different hospital contexts. The resulting programme theories may contribute to organisational strategy, leadership practice, and policy decisions aimed at improving staff wellbeing in acute hospital settings.

Keywords

Realist Review Protocol, Hospital Staff, Mental Health First Aid, Staff Wellbeing, Healthcare Workers.

Corresponding author: Sean Paul Teeling

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Health Research Board Ireland [CES-2024-037]
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2026 Donegan D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Donegan D, Teeling SP and McNamara M. A Realist Review Protocol on the Contribution of Mental Health First Aider Programmes to Staff Wellbeing within Hospital and associated healthcare settings [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2026, 9:7 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14318.2) First published: 09 Jan 2026, 9:7 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14318.1) Latest published: 03 Apr 2026, 9:7 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14318.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

This revised version incorporates updates made following open peer-review feedback. The revisions clarify the scope of the review, strengthen conceptual consistency around staff wellbeing and workplace culture, and refine the PICO framework to better reflect a theory-driven realist approach. Minor additions have also been made to illustrate a potential CMO configuration and to include a reflexivity statement

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Karel Desmet
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Mary Lavelle

Introduction

Mental health is described by the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2019) as a state of mental well-being that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, realise their abilities, learn well and work well, and contribute to their community. It has intrinsic and instrumental value and is integral to our well-being. Increasing demands on hospitals have led to concerns around the working conditions and wellbeing of staff (Kinman & Teoh, 2018). Healthcare staff typically access mental health support through an Employee Assistance Programme (EAP), a work-based service that helps staff and organizations with personal, work-related, and psychosocial issues. Workplace stress “particularly among frontline staff” is the number one issue raised by healthcare staff within the EAP (Lynch, 2023).

In this review, staff wellbeing will be conceptualised as the primary outcome and will refer to psychological wellbeing and related workplace experiences, including mental distress, burnout-related strain, psychological safety, and perceived organisational support. Workplace culture will be considered a contextual and relational influence that may enable or constrain the mechanisms through which MHFA affects staff wellbeing, rather than a standalone outcome.

Mental ill health imposes significant economic burdens, manifesting in various ways such as elevated expenses due to absenteeism and staff turnover, as well as heightened pressure on healthcare service (Cook et al., 2024). Friends and family may notice early signs of mental illness but often don’t know how to help, resulting in delayed access to treatment. Programmes such as Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) offer evidence-based knowledge and skills to enhance engagement and prompt support. Insufficient focus on preventative initiatives has been posited as an explanation for sustained mental ill health prevalence rates in several countries, despite increased mental health expenditure and service provision (Jorm et al., 2017; Meadows et al., 2019). Delays in seeking care can exacerbate mental ill health conditions leading to worse outcomes and reduced quality of life (Ahad et al., 2023). Through MHFA training the whole hospital community can assist formal mental health services in early intervention for mental health disorders (Kitchener & Jorm, 2008 p. 59).

MHFA programmes are internationally recognised, evidence-based, accredited training courses designed to inform individuals about how to support someone experiencing mental ill health. This study aims to identify which aspects of the MHFA programme benefit whom, under what conditions, and how best to enhance hospital staff wellbeing.

Use of realist inquiry

Realist inquiry aims to understand “what works, for whom, under what circumstances, and why (Pawson et al., 2005; Pawson, 2006; Teeling et al., 2021a; Teeling et al., 2021b). Realist inquiry goes beyond exploring surface-level inputs and outputs by discerning how the resources of a specific intervention evoke and interact with stakeholders’ psychosocial responses and trigger mechanisms (M) that generate intervention outcomes (O) in specific contexts (C) (de Brun et al., 2020). Researchers develop a Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) hypothesis to predict which mechanisms operate in different contexts and the resulting outcomes (Dalkin et al., 2015). This configuration is ideal for exploring the context-sensitivity of the impact of MHFA programmes on staff wellbeing in hospital and associated healthcare networks. For example, a potential early CMO Hypothesis could be, in contexts where senior leadership visibly supports MHFA participation and staff have protected time to attend training (C), the programme may trigger increased confidence and perceived organisational support among staff (M), leading to earlier peer signposting and help-seeking behaviours (O). Such provisional hypotheses will be tested and refined during the review.

This realist review protocol seeks to understand how, why, for whom, and under what circumstances MHFA programmes can influence staff wellbeing in hospital and associated healthcare settings. While existing evidence highlights the potential benefits of MHFA programme, its effectiveness is likely shaped by contextual factors, such as organisational culture, leadership support, and workforce dynamics. (Kitchener & Jorm, 2008). By exploring the mechanisms through which MHFA operates and the conditions that enable or hinder its success, this research seeks to provide a nuanced understanding of its impact.

The research question guiding the realist review described in this protocol is.

How, why, for whom, and under what circumstances do MHFA programmes influence staff wellbeing within hospital and associated healthcare settings?

The RAMESES guidelines provide standards to improve the rigour and comparability of realist and meta-narrative reviews (Greenhalgh et al., 2015). A five-stage structured methodology consistent with the RAMESES guidelines has been developed (Wong et al., 2017) which has been utilised to inform this review:

1. Define the scope of the review and develop initial theories.
2. Develop the search strategy.
3. Review primary studies and extract data.
4. Synthesise evidence and develop conclusions.
5. Refine theory iteratively and disseminate findings.

Define the scope of the review and develop initial theories

The development of Candidate Programme Theories (CPTs) in a realist review provides a framework for analysing the causal mechanisms that may generate outcomes within specific contexts (Teeling et al., 2021b). Developing CPTs will involve identifying possible explanations for how the MHFA programme may work, for whom, and under what circumstances. This theoretical mapping will draw on a scoping review of existing literature, expert insights, and early conceptual thinking to form initial hypotheses about how the intervention may operate (Keown et al., 2024).

Realist “hunches” are initial, theory-informed assumptions about how an intervention might work, for whom, and in what contexts (Pawson, 2013). These early ideas will guide the identification of potential mechanisms and relevant contextual conditions. Academic supervision will support the assessment of these developing ideas, ensuring their plausibility and relevance to the MHFA programme (Wong et al., 2013).

To ensure practical and contextual relevance, a Local Reference Group (LRG) will be convened. The LRG will comprise MHFA programme participants, accredited MHFA instructors involved in delivery, and staff with responsibility for organisational wellbeing initiatives within hospital and associated healthcare settings. Membership will be purposively selected to ensure representation of delivery, participation, and implementation perspectives (Wong et al., 2016). Their insights will help refine developing CPTs so that emerging theories remain grounded in real-world experience and practice.

A preliminary scoping of the literature will further support the development of CPTs. Searches will include electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), grey literature, and organisational sources such as the MHFA International website, using keywords related to realist review, healthcare staff, staff wellbeing, mental health, and MHFA (Booth, 2016).

Once CPTs have been developed in conjunction with the LRG and the scoping literature, they will be presented to an expert review panel for adjudication. The expert panel will comprise academic researchers with recognised expertise in realist review and organisational wellbeing research, alongside accredited MHFA instructors with experience of programme delivery and implementation in healthcare. Panel members will be selected based on demonstrated methodological and subject expertise to support credible adjudication of developing programme theories (Wong et al., 2016). The panel will confirm, refute, or refine the developing CPTs to strengthen their methodological rigour and practical relevance.

Following expert adjudication, the refined CPTs will become the Initial Programme Theories (IPTs). These IPTs will inform the next stages of the review, including refinement of the search strategy, development of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and synthesis. As evidence is gathered, the IPTs will be iteratively tested and refined in line with realist principles (Dalkin et al., 2015; Wong et al., 2013).

This process will ensure the development of a coherent set of programme theories that will guide the remainder of the realist review.

Develop the search strategy

A comprehensive and theory-informed search strategy will be essential to support the development and refinement of programme theories for this realist review. The search strategy will follow RAMESES guidance, which emphasises iterative, purposive searching aligned with the evolving focus of the review (Wong et al., 2013; Wong et al., 2016).

Searches will be conducted across multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Additional sources will include grey literature, organisational websites such as MHFA International, citation searching, and the reference lists of included studies (Booth, 2016). The support of a university librarian will ensure that search processes are systematic, comprehensive, and appropriately targeted.

A PICO (Population, Intervention, Context, Outcomes) framework will be used to structure the development of search terms and guide inclusion and exclusion criteria (Methley et al., 2014; Schardt et al., 2007). The PICO criteria have been developed based on the research question, preliminary scoping of the literature, and anticipated areas of theoretical interest (Booth, 2016; Pawson, 2013). This approach allows the PICO inclusion and exclusion criteria to be refined as the Candidate Programme Theories (CPTs) are developed and formalised, prior to their adjudication by the Expert Panel and progression to Initial Programme Theories (IPTs). These IPTs will then be tested through the realist review to develop Programme Theories (PTs). The PICO framework ( Table 1) will therefore serve as a guide for identifying relevant evidence. It will help ensure that search terms capture literature related to MHFA training, staff wellbeing, contextual influences on psychological support interventions, and implementation processes within acute hospital settings.

Eligibility approach

Studies will be included based on their contribution to programme theory development (contexts, mechanisms, outcomes), rather than requiring predefined quantitative indicators.

In line with realist methodology, outcomes will be conceptualised at three levels (Pawson & Tilley, 1997; Wong et al., 2013). Proximal outcomes will refer to immediate changes such as increased confidence or reduced stigma. Intermediate outcomes will include help-seeking behaviour and psychological safety. Distal outcomes will refer to broader organisational indicators such as absenteeism patterns or retention. This layered structure will guide programme theory development.

Consistent with realist methodology, searching will be iterative and theory-led rather than linear (Pawson, 2013; Wong et al., 2013). The PICO framework will be used to structure the initial search strategy and enhance transparency, but it will not function as a rigid eligibility filter. As programme theories evolve, further purposive searches may be undertaken to explore emerging contextual or mechanistic explanations. Study inclusion will therefore be guided by relevance, rigour, and richness of explanatory data (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2016).

These PICO criteria will provide the foundation for identifying potentially relevant evidence. As the Candidate Programme Theories (CPTs) are formalised and progress to Initial Programme Theories (IPTs), the selection of studies and the approach to data extraction will evolve to ensure alignment with the developing programme theories. This iterative refinement of searching and evidence selection is consistent with realist methodology, which emphasises the need for theory-driven and adaptive approaches to evidence gathering (Wong et al., 2013). The next section outlines how studies will be screened and how data will be extracted to support this realist review.

Review primary studies and extract data

Documents retrieved will be chosen based on their relevance to the research question and their potential to support the development of IPTs. These documents will form a robust collection of papers, essential for a theory-driven realist review to further refine the IPTs (Greenhalgh et al., 2011). The selection of studies will be guided by the realist criteria of relevance, richness, and rigour (Booth et al., 2013). Relevance is assessed by whether a study can contribute to building or testing a programme theory; richness refers to depth, detail, and complexity of data, which includes deep descriptions, contextual understanding, and multifaceted insights into human experiences rather than surface-level information; and rigour refers to the credibility of the methods used to collect the data (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2016; Wong et al., 2013). These criteria will collectively determine which literature is included in the review.

Data extraction will involve three steps: initial screening by title and abstract, full-text retrieval, and quality appraisal. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed in duplicate by Authors 1 and 2 using predefined criteria. Documents passing this stage will then be adjudicated for richness and rigour by Author 3. Any discrepancies will be resolved through discussion among all three authors, in line with RAMESES guidelines (Wong et al., 2013).

Synthesize evidence and develop conclusions

Search results will be imported into Covidence, an online software for managing and screening systematic search results, which is freely available to staff and students of University College Dublin. Rayyan is an alternative that is freely available. The analysis and synthesis process will follow the stages outlined by Rycroft-Malone et al. (2012), using an iterative, theory-driven approach appropriate for realist methodology. These stages will include:

• Organising extracted data into evidence tables;
• Theming by individual reviewers;
• Comparing reviewers’ themes for each article and developing chains of inference from the identified themes;
• Linking chains of inference across articles and tracking how evidence contributes to emerging theory;
• Formulating hypotheses represented as linked context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) chains.

Retroductive theorising will be used to synthesise data (Mukumbang et al., 2021). Retroduction involves an iterative cycle of inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and abduction to identify the underlying causal forces that may explain how the MHFA programme works (Gilmore et al., 2019). Endnote software will be used to record the references from search results and any additional references included during the review, and the review stages will be revisited as necessary to ensure comprehensive evidence gathering and to support theory saturation. EndNote is freely available to staff and students of University College Dublin, Zotero is an alternative which is freely available.

Refine theory iteratively and disseminate findings

The refined Initial Programme Theories (IPTs) derived from the realist review will undergo iterative evaluation and feedback from the expert panel to ensure accurate interpretation and explanation of the findings (Pawson et al., 2005). This engagement will enhance the robustness, contextual sensitivity, and real-world relevance of the resulting programme theories, reflecting the complexity of MHFA implementation in acute hospital settings (Wong et al., 2016).

The outcomes of the realist review will be reported in accordance with the RAMESES II reporting guidelines (Wong, 2018). Dissemination will include publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at healthcare and academic conferences, and engagement with key organisational stakeholders.

This realist review protocol is currently under consideration by the PROSPERO Editorial Committee, and a registration number will be added once approval is confirmed. Ethical approval is not required for this review because it synthesises published literature and involves no primary data collection. Ethical approval will be sought for any subsequent realist evaluation involving new data collection.

The research team includes members with experience in healthcare improvement and organisational wellbeing research, as well as familiarity with hospital-based wellbeing initiatives. This experience provides contextual insight into the organisational environments in which such initiatives are implemented, but it may also shape how evidence is interpreted. In keeping with realist methodology, the research team will engage critically with their assumptions throughout the research process, recognizing that programme theory development involves interpretive judgement (Pawson, 2013). Reflexive discussion within the research team, alongside expert panel adjudication and stakeholder engagement during programme theory refinement, will support methodological rigour and help minimise the risk of interpretive bias (Teeling et al., 2021b). These processes ensure that emerging interpretations are challenged, debated and tested against multiple perspectives during theory development.

Conclusion

The realist review outlined in this protocol aims to explore how, why, for whom, and under what circumstances the MHFA programme may promote staff wellbeing in hospital and associated healthcare settings. By adopting a critical realist approach and utilising realist inquiry, this review will seek to:

• Determine for whom the MHFA programme works or does not work, and why;
• Identify the contexts in which the MHFA programme may be effective or ineffective, and the reasons for these variations;
• Uncover the mechanisms through which the MHFA programme may achieve its intended outcomes in specific contexts;
• Evaluate the anticipated and unanticipated outcomes of the MHFA programme for staff wellbeing.

This approach will support the identification not only of potentially effective strategies, but also of the underlying causal processes and contextual conditions that may shape their success, providing a robust framework for understanding mechanisms in complex organisational environments (Pawson & Tilley, 1997). It is anticipated that the findings from the realist review described in this protocol will contribute to understanding how MHFA training may support staff wellbeing in hospital and associated healthcare settings.

Systematic review registration

This protocol is currently undergoing review by the PROSPERO Editorial committee, and registration number will be added as soon as available.

Data availability statement

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Extended data

Donegan et al. (2025). Prisma-P 2015 Checklist for realist review protocol: A Realist Review Protocol on the Contribution of Mental Health First Aider Programmes to Staff Wellbeing within Hospital and associated healthcare settings.

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30815501

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Reporting guidelines

The Realist Review will be informed by the RAMESES (Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards) project.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the anticipated valuable contributions of those who have agreed to participate in our local reference groups and expert panels, whose insights and expertise will be instrumental in guiding and refining this research.

References

Ahad AA, Sanchez-Gonzalez M, Junquera P: Understanding and addressing mental health stigma across cultures for improving psychiatric care: a narrative review. Cureus. 2023; 15(5): e39549. PubMed Abstract | , Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Booth A: Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Syst Rev. 2016; 5: 74.PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Booth A, Harris J, Croot E, et al.: Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual "richness" for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Cook A, Keyte R, Sprawson I, et al.: Mental Health First Aid experiences: a qualitive investigation into the emotional impact of Mental Health First Aid responsibilities and the significance of self-compassion. SN Social Sciences. 2024; 4: 171. Publisher Full Text
Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, et al.: What's in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015; 10(1): 49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
De Brun A, Rogers L, O’Shea M, et al.: Understanding the impact of a collective leadership intervention on team working and safety culture in healthcare teams: a realist evaluation protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res. 2020; 2: 5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Donegan D, Teeling SP, McNamara M: PRISMA-P 2015 checklist for realist review protocol: a realist review protocol on the contribution of a Mental Health First Aider programme to staff health and wellbeing within an Irish hospital network. figshare. 2025. Publisher Full Text
Gilmore B, McAuliffe E, Power J, et al.: Data analysis and synthesis within a realist evaluation: toward more transparent methodological approaches. Int J Qual. Methods. 2019; 18: 18. Publisher Full Text
Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Jagosh J, et al.: Protocol—the RAMESES II study: developing guidance and reporting standards for realist evaluation. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(8): e008567. Publisher Full Text
Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Westhorp G, et al.: Protocol-Realist and Metanarrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11: 115. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Jorm AF, Patten SB, Brugha TS, et al.: Has increased provision of treatment reduced the prevalence of common mental disorders? Review of the evidence from four countries. World Psychiatry. 2017; 16(1): 90–99. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Keown AM, Teeling SP, Mcnamara M: The contribution of leaders' and managers' attributes, values, principles, and behaviours to the sustainable implementation of lean in healthcare: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res. 2024; 7: 54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Kinman A, Teoh KRH: What could make a difference to mental health of UK doctors? A review of the research evidence.2018. Reference Source
Kitchener BA, Jorm AF: Mental Health First Aid: an international programme for early intervention. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2008; 2(1): 55–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Lynch D: Workplace stress is ‘number one issue’ raised with HSE Employee Assistance Programme. The medical independent, {sourced 30th October 2025}, 2023. Reference Source
Meadows GN, Prodan A, Patten S, et al.: Resolving the paradox of increased mental health expenditure and stable prevalence. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2019; 53(9): 844–850. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C; PICO: PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14: 579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Mukumbang FC, Kabongo EM, Eastwood JG: Examining the application of retroductive theorizing in realist-informed studies. Int J Qual Methods. 2021; 20(1): 1–14. Publisher Full Text
Pawson R: Digging for nuggets: how ‘Bad’ research can yield ‘Good’ evidence. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006; 9(2): 127–142. Publisher Full Text
Pawson R: The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto. London: Sage; 2013. Publisher Full Text
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al.: Realist review -- a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10(Suppl 1): 21–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Pawson R, Tilley N: An introduction to scientific realist evaluation. Sage, London; 1997. Publisher Full Text
Rycroft-Malone J, Burton CR, Bucknall T, Graham ID, Hutchinson AM, Stacey D: Collaboration and co-production of knowledge in healthcare: opportunities and challenges. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(4): 221–223. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al.: Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012; 7: 33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, et al.: Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007; 7(1): 16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Teeling SP, Davies C, Barnard M, et al.: A rapid realist review of quality care process metrics implementation in nursing and midwifery practice. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021a; 18(22): 11932. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Teeling SP, Dewing J: Baldie D: A realist inquiry to identify the contribution of Lean Six Sigma to person-centred care and cultures. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021b; 18(19): 10427. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Wong G: Realist reviews in health policy and systems research. Evidence synthesis for health policy and systems: a methods guide. World Health Organization; 2018.
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al.: RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 2013; 11: 20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Wong G, Westhorp G, Greenhalgh J, et al.: Quality and reporting standards, resources, training materials and information for realist evaluation: the RAMESES II project. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2017; 5(28): 1–108. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Wong G, Westhorp G, Manzano A, et al.: RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Med. 2016; 14(1): 96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
World Health Organisation: mhGAP community toolkit: field test version.Geneva:World Health Organization. 2019; [accessed 14 Dec 2024]. Reference Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2026

Author details Author details

Dolores Donegan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Martin McNamara
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Health Research Board Ireland [CES-2024-037]
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 03 Apr 2026, 9:7

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14318.2

version 1

Published: 09 Jan 2026, 9:7

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14318.1

© 2026 Donegan D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

279

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Donegan D, Teeling SP and McNamara M. A Realist Review Protocol on the Contribution of Mental Health First Aider Programmes to Staff Wellbeing within Hospital and associated healthcare settings [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2026, 9:7 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14318.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 03 Apr 2026

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 21 Apr 2026

Mary Lavelle, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15879.r54456

The authors have clearly considered the feedback provided and have improved the clarity ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 07 Apr 2026

Karel Desmet, Ghent University, Ghent, Flanders, Belgium; General Hospital Ostend, Ostend, Belgium

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15879.r54455

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2026

Views

Reviewer Report 17 Feb 2026

Mary Lavelle, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15761.r53376

This manuscript presents a protocol for a realist review examining how, why, and in what contexts Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) programmes may support staff health and wellbeing within a hospital network. The rationale for undertaking a realist approach is clearly articulated and well justified. There are some points that require further clarification, which I have summarised below.

The title refers specifically to the contribution of the programme within an Irish Hospital Network, yet the proposed review does not appear to be limited to Irish settings. This may create some ambiguity about the scope of the review.
Different terms are used throughout the manuscript when referring to the primary outcome, including “staff health and wellbeing,” “staff wellbeing,” and, in the conclusion, “workplace culture.” It would strengthen the protocol to define more precisely the core outcome(s) of interest and to use consistent terminology throughout. If workplace culture is intended as a key outcome, this should be made explicit earlier in the manuscript. Alternatively, if workplace culture is being conceptualised as a contextual factor or mechanism within the realist framework, this should be clearly articulated.
Relatedly, in Table 1 (PICO), the outcomes section appears relatively narrow and does not include reference to workplace culture. Could the PICO be too rigid for this type of review? If workplace culture is a central concept within the review, consideration should be given to whether it should be incorporated into the eligibility criteria and reflected explicitly within the outcomes (or context/mechanism) component of the framework.
Overall, greater conceptual coherence between the title, stated aims, search strategy, and conclusion would strengthen the clarity and rigour of the protocol.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Mental Health research, both qualitative and quantitative methods. I have not conducted a realist review.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 03 Apr 2026

Sean Paul Teeling, UCD School of Nursing and Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

03 Apr 2026

Author Response

Dear Dr Lavelle,

Thank you for taking the time to review the protocol and for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided. Your observations were particularly helpful in strengthening the ... Continue reading Dear Dr Lavelle,

Thank you for taking the time to review the protocol and for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided. Your observations were particularly helpful in strengthening the clarity of the title, improving conceptual consistency across the manuscript, and refining the framing of the PICO to better reflect the explanatory focus of the review.

In response to your observation that the title referred to an Irish Hospital Network while the review itself was not restricted to Ireland, the title and related sections of the manuscript have been revised to remove this ambiguity. The title now focuses on staff wellbeing within a hospital network rather than specifying a national context. This better reflects the scope of the realist review, which draws on international evidence to develop programme theories. The subsequent realist evaluation phase of the wider study will be conducted within Irish hospital sites; however, the review itself is not geographically restricted. Related terminology within the abstract has also been revised to ensure consistency, including replacing “Staff Health and Wellbeing” with “Staff Wellbeing” and removing the reference to an “Irish Hospital Network” (Title section, Page 1; Abstract).

Your comment regarding inconsistent terminology across the manuscript was also extremely helpful. The protocol has been revised to ensure consistent use of the term “staff wellbeing” throughout the title, aims, search strategy and conclusion. In addition, “workplace culture” is now positioned more clearly as a contextual influence that may shape how programme mechanisms operate within organisational settings rather than being presented as a standalone outcome. These revisions strengthen conceptual alignment across the protocol and improve clarity regarding the key concepts underpinning the review.

Finally, we appreciate your observation that the original PICO appeared overly rigid and did not sufficiently capture the role of workplace culture. In response, the PICO has been revised to better reflect the explanatory orientation of realist methodology. Culture is now positioned within the context component of the framework, recognising its influence on how programme mechanisms may operate in organisational environments. Outcomes are also conceptualised in a layered manner rather than through predefined metric thresholds, allowing for consideration of proximal, intermediate and distal outcomes. The text has also been revised to clarify that study inclusion will be guided by theory development and explanatory relevance rather than by predefined performance indicators (see Line 125).

All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript, and the relevant line numbers have been provided above to assist in locating the changes. Your comments have been extremely helpful in strengthening the conceptual clarity and methodological coherence of the protocol.
Dear Dr Lavelle,

Thank you for taking the time to review the protocol and for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided. Your observations were particularly helpful in strengthening the clarity of the title, improving conceptual consistency across the manuscript, and refining the framing of the PICO to better reflect the explanatory focus of the review.

In response to your observation that the title referred to an Irish Hospital Network while the review itself was not restricted to Ireland, the title and related sections of the manuscript have been revised to remove this ambiguity. The title now focuses on staff wellbeing within a hospital network rather than specifying a national context. This better reflects the scope of the realist review, which draws on international evidence to develop programme theories. The subsequent realist evaluation phase of the wider study will be conducted within Irish hospital sites; however, the review itself is not geographically restricted. Related terminology within the abstract has also been revised to ensure consistency, including replacing “Staff Health and Wellbeing” with “Staff Wellbeing” and removing the reference to an “Irish Hospital Network” (Title section, Page 1; Abstract).

Your comment regarding inconsistent terminology across the manuscript was also extremely helpful. The protocol has been revised to ensure consistent use of the term “staff wellbeing” throughout the title, aims, search strategy and conclusion. In addition, “workplace culture” is now positioned more clearly as a contextual influence that may shape how programme mechanisms operate within organisational settings rather than being presented as a standalone outcome. These revisions strengthen conceptual alignment across the protocol and improve clarity regarding the key concepts underpinning the review.

Finally, we appreciate your observation that the original PICO appeared overly rigid and did not sufficiently capture the role of workplace culture. In response, the PICO has been revised to better reflect the explanatory orientation of realist methodology. Culture is now positioned within the context component of the framework, recognising its influence on how programme mechanisms may operate in organisational environments. Outcomes are also conceptualised in a layered manner rather than through predefined metric thresholds, allowing for consideration of proximal, intermediate and distal outcomes. The text has also been revised to clarify that study inclusion will be guided by theory development and explanatory relevance rather than by predefined performance indicators (see Line 125).

All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript, and the relevant line numbers have been provided above to assist in locating the changes. Your comments have been extremely helpful in strengthening the conceptual clarity and methodological coherence of the protocol.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 03 Apr 2026

Sean Paul Teeling, UCD School of Nursing and Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

03 Apr 2026

Author Response

Dear Dr Lavelle,

Thank you for taking the time to review the protocol and for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided. Your observations were particularly helpful in strengthening the ... Continue reading Dear Dr Lavelle,

Thank you for taking the time to review the protocol and for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided. Your observations were particularly helpful in strengthening the clarity of the title, improving conceptual consistency across the manuscript, and refining the framing of the PICO to better reflect the explanatory focus of the review.

In response to your observation that the title referred to an Irish Hospital Network while the review itself was not restricted to Ireland, the title and related sections of the manuscript have been revised to remove this ambiguity. The title now focuses on staff wellbeing within a hospital network rather than specifying a national context. This better reflects the scope of the realist review, which draws on international evidence to develop programme theories. The subsequent realist evaluation phase of the wider study will be conducted within Irish hospital sites; however, the review itself is not geographically restricted. Related terminology within the abstract has also been revised to ensure consistency, including replacing “Staff Health and Wellbeing” with “Staff Wellbeing” and removing the reference to an “Irish Hospital Network” (Title section, Page 1; Abstract).

Your comment regarding inconsistent terminology across the manuscript was also extremely helpful. The protocol has been revised to ensure consistent use of the term “staff wellbeing” throughout the title, aims, search strategy and conclusion. In addition, “workplace culture” is now positioned more clearly as a contextual influence that may shape how programme mechanisms operate within organisational settings rather than being presented as a standalone outcome. These revisions strengthen conceptual alignment across the protocol and improve clarity regarding the key concepts underpinning the review.

Finally, we appreciate your observation that the original PICO appeared overly rigid and did not sufficiently capture the role of workplace culture. In response, the PICO has been revised to better reflect the explanatory orientation of realist methodology. Culture is now positioned within the context component of the framework, recognising its influence on how programme mechanisms may operate in organisational environments. Outcomes are also conceptualised in a layered manner rather than through predefined metric thresholds, allowing for consideration of proximal, intermediate and distal outcomes. The text has also been revised to clarify that study inclusion will be guided by theory development and explanatory relevance rather than by predefined performance indicators (see Line 125).

All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript, and the relevant line numbers have been provided above to assist in locating the changes. Your comments have been extremely helpful in strengthening the conceptual clarity and methodological coherence of the protocol.
Dear Dr Lavelle,

Thank you for taking the time to review the protocol and for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided. Your observations were particularly helpful in strengthening the clarity of the title, improving conceptual consistency across the manuscript, and refining the framing of the PICO to better reflect the explanatory focus of the review.

In response to your observation that the title referred to an Irish Hospital Network while the review itself was not restricted to Ireland, the title and related sections of the manuscript have been revised to remove this ambiguity. The title now focuses on staff wellbeing within a hospital network rather than specifying a national context. This better reflects the scope of the realist review, which draws on international evidence to develop programme theories. The subsequent realist evaluation phase of the wider study will be conducted within Irish hospital sites; however, the review itself is not geographically restricted. Related terminology within the abstract has also been revised to ensure consistency, including replacing “Staff Health and Wellbeing” with “Staff Wellbeing” and removing the reference to an “Irish Hospital Network” (Title section, Page 1; Abstract).

Your comment regarding inconsistent terminology across the manuscript was also extremely helpful. The protocol has been revised to ensure consistent use of the term “staff wellbeing” throughout the title, aims, search strategy and conclusion. In addition, “workplace culture” is now positioned more clearly as a contextual influence that may shape how programme mechanisms operate within organisational settings rather than being presented as a standalone outcome. These revisions strengthen conceptual alignment across the protocol and improve clarity regarding the key concepts underpinning the review.

Finally, we appreciate your observation that the original PICO appeared overly rigid and did not sufficiently capture the role of workplace culture. In response, the PICO has been revised to better reflect the explanatory orientation of realist methodology. Culture is now positioned within the context component of the framework, recognising its influence on how programme mechanisms may operate in organisational environments. Outcomes are also conceptualised in a layered manner rather than through predefined metric thresholds, allowing for consideration of proximal, intermediate and distal outcomes. The text has also been revised to clarify that study inclusion will be guided by theory development and explanatory relevance rather than by predefined performance indicators (see Line 125).

All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript, and the relevant line numbers have been provided above to assist in locating the changes. Your comments have been extremely helpful in strengthening the conceptual clarity and methodological coherence of the protocol.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 09 Feb 2026

Karel Desmet, Ghent University, Ghent, Flanders, Belgium; General Hospital Ostend, Ostend, Belgium

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15761.r53127

Thank you for submitting this manuscript, which addresses a highly relevant topic in a rapidly evolving healthcare landscape. The protocol paper presents a valuable contribution to the field and is well-structured. The focus on mechanisms, contextual contingencies, and implementation processes is well aligned with the complexity of workplace mental health interventions. However, several clarifications and expansions could be strengthened to enhance its precision, clarity, methodological coherence and readability.
The authors convincingly justify the use of realist inquiry. The emphasis on context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) configurations and retroductive theorising appropriately reflects the complexity of MHFA as a social and organisational intervention rather than a simple training “dose–response” model. The intention to move beyond effectiveness questions toward explanatory theory building is a clear strength. The integration of local stakeholders (Local Reference Group and expert panel) is particularly valuable and consistent with realist principles of theory refinement through practitioner knowledge. Is it possible to add more information about the MFA trainers, participants and expert trainers. For a non-UK reader this is not clear. Please add some more information about the experts to enhance validity and relevance.
Some terms could be defined more precisely. For instance, ‘staff wellbeing’ is used broadly. Clarifying whether this refers to psychological wellbeing, burnout, mental distress, organizational outcomes, or a combination would sharpen the analytical focus.
Although realist reviews are not outcome-centric in the traditional sense, the protocol lists several operational indicators (e.g., absenteeism rates, health checks, percentage trained). These metrics risk framing MHFA in primarily instrumental or managerial terms. It may be helpful to: distinguish between proximal outcomes (e.g., confidence to provide peer support, stigma reduction), intermediate outcomes (e.g., help-seeking behaviour, psychological safety), distal organisational outcomes (e.g., absenteeism, retention). This layered outcome logic could strengthen the program theory and prevent conflating mechanisms with endpoints.
The use of a PICO structure to guide searching is understandable for transparency, but it sits somewhat uneasily with realist logic. PICO tends to imply intervention–outcome testing (and pragmatically used for systematic reviews), whereas realist synthesis is theory-led and mechanism-focused. Consider clarifying inclusion decisions more theory-driven. Without this clarification, the criteria (e.g., limiting to staff who participated MHFA, or requiring certain outcomes) may inadvertently exclude conceptually rich studies that inform mechanisms but do not report predefined metrics.
Restricting settings to ‘acute hospitals participating in MHFA training for two years or more’ may unintentionally narrow the explanatory potential of the review. Realist reviews often benefit from conceptual heterogeneity, including studies from adjacent contexts that illuminate mechanisms. The authors might reflect on whether: shorter implementations, other healthcare or organisational settings, or broader workplace MHFA applications could provide transferable insights into mechanisms. A slightly more permissive approach could enrich theory development.
The description of synthesis is appropriate but could be made more explicit. For example: How will CMO configurations be documented (software, templates, coding framework)? Will coding be double-checked or discussed collaboratively? How will disagreements about inferred mechanisms be resolved? Providing these operational details would enhance methodological transparency.
The protocol mentions “realist hunches,” CPTs, and IPTs, which is consistent with realist language. However, the process could be described more concretely. A brief illustrative example of a potential CMO hypothesis (even hypothetical) would help readers unfamiliar with realist work to understand how theories will be articulated and refined.
Minor suggestions: Ensure consistent terminology (MHFA programme vs training vs intervention). Check citation formatting and typographical accuracy. Avoid over-assertive claims about “evidence-based” status unless clearly specified. Consider a short reflexivity statement describing the team’s positioning, particularly given local implementation links.
Overall, this is a thoughtful and promising study that is likely to make a meaningful contribution to both implementation science and mental health research. with modest refinements the protocol will provide a robust foundation for a high-quality realist review.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: mental health research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 03 Apr 2026

Sean Paul Teeling, UCD School of Nursing and Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

03 Apr 2026

Author Response

Dear Dr Desmet

Sincere thanks for the constructive suggestions provided. These comments were extremely helpful in strengthening the clarity and methodological transparency of the study. In response, several revisions have ... Continue reading Dear Dr Desmet

Sincere thanks for the constructive suggestions provided. These comments were extremely helpful in strengthening the clarity and methodological transparency of the study. In response, several revisions have been made throughout the manuscript.

Additional detail has been added to clarify the composition and roles of both the Local Reference Group and the Expert Panel. These sections now outline the inclusion of MHFA programme participants, accredited MHFA instructors involved in programme delivery, and staff responsible for organisational wellbeing initiatives within hospital settings, alongside academic researchers with recognised expertise in realist methodology and organisational wellbeing (Lines 81–84; 93–98).

The introduction has also been revised to provide a clearer definition of staff wellbeing within hospital contexts, specifying that it refers to psychological wellbeing and related workplace experiences such as burnout-related strain, psychological safety, mental distress and perceived organisational support. Workplace culture is clarified as a contextual influence that may shape how programme mechanisms operate, rather than as a standalone outcome (Lines 11–16).

In response to your observation that outcomes were framed too narrowly in managerial or metric-driven terms, the outcomes section has been revised to distinguish between proximal, intermediate and distal outcomes. This layered structure supports realist programme theory development by recognising that interventions may produce different types of outcomes across stages of implementation and organisational influence (Lines 125; 127–132).

Your observation regarding the rigidity of the original PICO structure was also particularly helpful. The manuscript now clarifies that PICO is used only to structure the initial search strategy and that the review will follow an iterative, theory-led searching process consistent with realist methodology, allowing further purposive searches to explore emerging contextual and mechanistic explanations as programme theories develop (Lines 133–138). In addition, the restriction to acute hospital settings has been relaxed to allow inclusion of studies from adjacent healthcare contexts where they provide transferable explanatory insight relevant to hospital staff wellbeing (Line 125).

To further support methodological clarity, a brief illustrative Context–Mechanism–Outcome example has been added to the introduction to demonstrate how provisional programme theories may be articulated and refined during the review process (Lines 43–47).

Finally, a reflexivity statement has been included in the methods section outlining the research team’s background in healthcare improvement and organisational wellbeing research and describing the reflexive processes that will be used to support interpretive rigour, including team discussion, expert panel adjudication and stakeholder engagement during programme theory refinement (Lines 203–214).

All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript and the relevant line numbers have been provided above to assist the reviewer in locating the changes. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has helped strengthen the explanatory focus and methodological coherence of the protocol and ensures that the review is positioned to generate programme theories that can inform how and under what conditions MHFA may contribute to staff wellbeing across healthcare settings.
Dear Dr Desmet

Sincere thanks for the constructive suggestions provided. These comments were extremely helpful in strengthening the clarity and methodological transparency of the study. In response, several revisions have been made throughout the manuscript.

Additional detail has been added to clarify the composition and roles of both the Local Reference Group and the Expert Panel. These sections now outline the inclusion of MHFA programme participants, accredited MHFA instructors involved in programme delivery, and staff responsible for organisational wellbeing initiatives within hospital settings, alongside academic researchers with recognised expertise in realist methodology and organisational wellbeing (Lines 81–84; 93–98).

The introduction has also been revised to provide a clearer definition of staff wellbeing within hospital contexts, specifying that it refers to psychological wellbeing and related workplace experiences such as burnout-related strain, psychological safety, mental distress and perceived organisational support. Workplace culture is clarified as a contextual influence that may shape how programme mechanisms operate, rather than as a standalone outcome (Lines 11–16).

In response to your observation that outcomes were framed too narrowly in managerial or metric-driven terms, the outcomes section has been revised to distinguish between proximal, intermediate and distal outcomes. This layered structure supports realist programme theory development by recognising that interventions may produce different types of outcomes across stages of implementation and organisational influence (Lines 125; 127–132).

Your observation regarding the rigidity of the original PICO structure was also particularly helpful. The manuscript now clarifies that PICO is used only to structure the initial search strategy and that the review will follow an iterative, theory-led searching process consistent with realist methodology, allowing further purposive searches to explore emerging contextual and mechanistic explanations as programme theories develop (Lines 133–138). In addition, the restriction to acute hospital settings has been relaxed to allow inclusion of studies from adjacent healthcare contexts where they provide transferable explanatory insight relevant to hospital staff wellbeing (Line 125).

To further support methodological clarity, a brief illustrative Context–Mechanism–Outcome example has been added to the introduction to demonstrate how provisional programme theories may be articulated and refined during the review process (Lines 43–47).

Finally, a reflexivity statement has been included in the methods section outlining the research team’s background in healthcare improvement and organisational wellbeing research and describing the reflexive processes that will be used to support interpretive rigour, including team discussion, expert panel adjudication and stakeholder engagement during programme theory refinement (Lines 203–214).

All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript and the relevant line numbers have been provided above to assist the reviewer in locating the changes. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has helped strengthen the explanatory focus and methodological coherence of the protocol and ensures that the review is positioned to generate programme theories that can inform how and under what conditions MHFA may contribute to staff wellbeing across healthcare settings.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 03 Apr 2026

Sean Paul Teeling, UCD School of Nursing and Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

03 Apr 2026

Author Response

Dear Dr Desmet

Sincere thanks for the constructive suggestions provided. These comments were extremely helpful in strengthening the clarity and methodological transparency of the study. In response, several revisions have ... Continue reading Dear Dr Desmet

Sincere thanks for the constructive suggestions provided. These comments were extremely helpful in strengthening the clarity and methodological transparency of the study. In response, several revisions have been made throughout the manuscript.

Additional detail has been added to clarify the composition and roles of both the Local Reference Group and the Expert Panel. These sections now outline the inclusion of MHFA programme participants, accredited MHFA instructors involved in programme delivery, and staff responsible for organisational wellbeing initiatives within hospital settings, alongside academic researchers with recognised expertise in realist methodology and organisational wellbeing (Lines 81–84; 93–98).

The introduction has also been revised to provide a clearer definition of staff wellbeing within hospital contexts, specifying that it refers to psychological wellbeing and related workplace experiences such as burnout-related strain, psychological safety, mental distress and perceived organisational support. Workplace culture is clarified as a contextual influence that may shape how programme mechanisms operate, rather than as a standalone outcome (Lines 11–16).

In response to your observation that outcomes were framed too narrowly in managerial or metric-driven terms, the outcomes section has been revised to distinguish between proximal, intermediate and distal outcomes. This layered structure supports realist programme theory development by recognising that interventions may produce different types of outcomes across stages of implementation and organisational influence (Lines 125; 127–132).

Your observation regarding the rigidity of the original PICO structure was also particularly helpful. The manuscript now clarifies that PICO is used only to structure the initial search strategy and that the review will follow an iterative, theory-led searching process consistent with realist methodology, allowing further purposive searches to explore emerging contextual and mechanistic explanations as programme theories develop (Lines 133–138). In addition, the restriction to acute hospital settings has been relaxed to allow inclusion of studies from adjacent healthcare contexts where they provide transferable explanatory insight relevant to hospital staff wellbeing (Line 125).

To further support methodological clarity, a brief illustrative Context–Mechanism–Outcome example has been added to the introduction to demonstrate how provisional programme theories may be articulated and refined during the review process (Lines 43–47).

Finally, a reflexivity statement has been included in the methods section outlining the research team’s background in healthcare improvement and organisational wellbeing research and describing the reflexive processes that will be used to support interpretive rigour, including team discussion, expert panel adjudication and stakeholder engagement during programme theory refinement (Lines 203–214).

All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript and the relevant line numbers have been provided above to assist the reviewer in locating the changes. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has helped strengthen the explanatory focus and methodological coherence of the protocol and ensures that the review is positioned to generate programme theories that can inform how and under what conditions MHFA may contribute to staff wellbeing across healthcare settings.
Dear Dr Desmet

Sincere thanks for the constructive suggestions provided. These comments were extremely helpful in strengthening the clarity and methodological transparency of the study. In response, several revisions have been made throughout the manuscript.

Additional detail has been added to clarify the composition and roles of both the Local Reference Group and the Expert Panel. These sections now outline the inclusion of MHFA programme participants, accredited MHFA instructors involved in programme delivery, and staff responsible for organisational wellbeing initiatives within hospital settings, alongside academic researchers with recognised expertise in realist methodology and organisational wellbeing (Lines 81–84; 93–98).

The introduction has also been revised to provide a clearer definition of staff wellbeing within hospital contexts, specifying that it refers to psychological wellbeing and related workplace experiences such as burnout-related strain, psychological safety, mental distress and perceived organisational support. Workplace culture is clarified as a contextual influence that may shape how programme mechanisms operate, rather than as a standalone outcome (Lines 11–16).

In response to your observation that outcomes were framed too narrowly in managerial or metric-driven terms, the outcomes section has been revised to distinguish between proximal, intermediate and distal outcomes. This layered structure supports realist programme theory development by recognising that interventions may produce different types of outcomes across stages of implementation and organisational influence (Lines 125; 127–132).

Your observation regarding the rigidity of the original PICO structure was also particularly helpful. The manuscript now clarifies that PICO is used only to structure the initial search strategy and that the review will follow an iterative, theory-led searching process consistent with realist methodology, allowing further purposive searches to explore emerging contextual and mechanistic explanations as programme theories develop (Lines 133–138). In addition, the restriction to acute hospital settings has been relaxed to allow inclusion of studies from adjacent healthcare contexts where they provide transferable explanatory insight relevant to hospital staff wellbeing (Line 125).

To further support methodological clarity, a brief illustrative Context–Mechanism–Outcome example has been added to the introduction to demonstrate how provisional programme theories may be articulated and refined during the review process (Lines 43–47).

Finally, a reflexivity statement has been included in the methods section outlining the research team’s background in healthcare improvement and organisational wellbeing research and describing the reflexive processes that will be used to support interpretive rigour, including team discussion, expert panel adjudication and stakeholder engagement during programme theory refinement (Lines 203–214).

All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript and the relevant line numbers have been provided above to assist the reviewer in locating the changes. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has helped strengthen the explanatory focus and methodological coherence of the protocol and ensures that the review is positioned to generate programme theories that can inform how and under what conditions MHFA may contribute to staff wellbeing across healthcare settings.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2026

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 03 Apr 26	read	read
Version 1 09 Jan 26	read	read

Karel Desmet, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; General Hospital Ostend, Ostend, Belgium
Mary Lavelle, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

21 Apr 2026 | for Version 2

Mary Lavelle, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have clearly considered the feedback provided and have improved the clarity of the manuscript. I am happy to approve this manuscript at this stage.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Mental Health research, both qualitative and quantitative methods. I have not conducted a realist review.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

07 Apr 2026 | for Version 2

Karel Desmet, Ghent University, Ghent, Flanders, Belgium; General Hospital Ostend, Ostend, Belgium

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors are to be commended for the rigor and diligence demonstrated throughout the revision process. Their responses are consistently comprehensive and well-articulated, reflecting a thorough engagement with the comments. Moreover, the revisions made to the manuscript are both appropriate and substantively improve its clarity and scholarly contribution. The authors also demonstrate a commendable level of critical reflection, carefully considering the implications of the feedback and transparently justifying their choices. Overall, this iterative process has clearly strengthened the manuscript.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

mental health research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

20 Views

17 Feb 2026 | for Version 1

Mary Lavelle, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

20 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Mental Health research, both qualitative and quantitative methods. I have not conducted a realist review.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

03 Apr 2026

Sean Paul Teeling, UCD School of Nursing and Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

Dear Dr Lavelle,

Thank you for taking the time to review the protocol and for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided. Your observations were particularly helpful in strengthening the clarity of the title, improving conceptual consistency across the manuscript, and refining the framing of the PICO to better reflect the explanatory focus of the review.

In response to your observation that the title referred to an Irish Hospital Network while the review itself was not restricted to Ireland, the title and related sections of the manuscript have been revised to remove this ambiguity. The title now focuses on staff wellbeing within a hospital network rather than specifying a national context. This better reflects the scope of the realist review, which draws on international evidence to develop programme theories. The subsequent realist evaluation phase of the wider study will be conducted within Irish hospital sites; however, the review itself is not geographically restricted. Related terminology within the abstract has also been revised to ensure consistency, including replacing “Staff Health and Wellbeing” with “Staff Wellbeing” and removing the reference to an “Irish Hospital Network” (Title section, Page 1; Abstract).

Your comment regarding inconsistent terminology across the manuscript was also extremely helpful. The protocol has been revised to ensure consistent use of the term “staff wellbeing” throughout the title, aims, search strategy and conclusion. In addition, “workplace culture” is now positioned more clearly as a contextual influence that may shape how programme mechanisms operate within organisational settings rather than being presented as a standalone outcome. These revisions strengthen conceptual alignment across the protocol and improve clarity regarding the key concepts underpinning the review.

Finally, we appreciate your observation that the original PICO appeared overly rigid and did not sufficiently capture the role of workplace culture. In response, the PICO has been revised to better reflect the explanatory orientation of realist methodology. Culture is now positioned within the context component of the framework, recognising its influence on how programme mechanisms may operate in organisational environments. Outcomes are also conceptualised in a layered manner rather than through predefined metric thresholds, allowing for consideration of proximal, intermediate and distal outcomes. The text has also been revised to clarify that study inclusion will be guided by theory development and explanatory relevance rather than by predefined performance indicators (see Line 125).

All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript, and the relevant line numbers have been provided above to assist in locating the changes. Your comments have been extremely helpful in strengthening the conceptual clarity and methodological coherence of the protocol.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

31 Views

09 Feb 2026 | for Version 1

Karel Desmet, Ghent University, Ghent, Flanders, Belgium; General Hospital Ostend, Ostend, Belgium

31 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

mental health research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

03 Apr 2026

Sean Paul Teeling, UCD School of Nursing and Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

Dear Dr Desmet

Sincere thanks for the constructive suggestions provided. These comments were extremely helpful in strengthening the clarity and methodological transparency of the study. In response, several revisions have been made throughout the manuscript.

Additional detail has been added to clarify the composition and roles of both the Local Reference Group and the Expert Panel. These sections now outline the inclusion of MHFA programme participants, accredited MHFA instructors involved in programme delivery, and staff responsible for organisational wellbeing initiatives within hospital settings, alongside academic researchers with recognised expertise in realist methodology and organisational wellbeing (Lines 81–84; 93–98).

The introduction has also been revised to provide a clearer definition of staff wellbeing within hospital contexts, specifying that it refers to psychological wellbeing and related workplace experiences such as burnout-related strain, psychological safety, mental distress and perceived organisational support. Workplace culture is clarified as a contextual influence that may shape how programme mechanisms operate, rather than as a standalone outcome (Lines 11–16).

In response to your observation that outcomes were framed too narrowly in managerial or metric-driven terms, the outcomes section has been revised to distinguish between proximal, intermediate and distal outcomes. This layered structure supports realist programme theory development by recognising that interventions may produce different types of outcomes across stages of implementation and organisational influence (Lines 125; 127–132).

Your observation regarding the rigidity of the original PICO structure was also particularly helpful. The manuscript now clarifies that PICO is used only to structure the initial search strategy and that the review will follow an iterative, theory-led searching process consistent with realist methodology, allowing further purposive searches to explore emerging contextual and mechanistic explanations as programme theories develop (Lines 133–138). In addition, the restriction to acute hospital settings has been relaxed to allow inclusion of studies from adjacent healthcare contexts where they provide transferable explanatory insight relevant to hospital staff wellbeing (Line 125).

To further support methodological clarity, a brief illustrative Context–Mechanism–Outcome example has been added to the introduction to demonstrate how provisional programme theories may be articulated and refined during the review process (Lines 43–47).

Finally, a reflexivity statement has been included in the methods section outlining the research team’s background in healthcare improvement and organisational wellbeing research and describing the reflexive processes that will be used to support interpretive rigour, including team discussion, expert panel adjudication and stakeholder engagement during programme theory refinement (Lines 203–214).

All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript and the relevant line numbers have been provided above to assist the reviewer in locating the changes. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has helped strengthen the explanatory focus and methodological coherence of the protocol and ensures that the review is positioned to generate programme theories that can inform how and under what conditions MHFA may contribute to staff wellbeing across healthcare settings.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Ahad AA, Sanchez-Gonzalez M, Junquera P: Understanding and addressing mental health stigma across cultures for improving psychiatric care: a narrative review. Cureus. 2023; 15(5): e39549. PubMed Abstract | , Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] Booth A: Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Syst Rev. 2016; 5: 74.PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] Booth A, Harris J, Croot E, et al.: Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual "richness" for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] Cook A, Keyte R, Sprawson I, et al.: Mental Health First Aid experiences: a qualitive investigation into the emotional impact of Mental Health First Aid responsibilities and the significance of self-compassion. SN Social Sciences. 2024; 4: 171. Publisher Full Text

[5] Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, et al.: What's in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015; 10(1): 49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] De Brun A, Rogers L, O’Shea M, et al.: Understanding the impact of a collective leadership intervention on team working and safety culture in healthcare teams: a realist evaluation protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res. 2020; 2: 5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] Donegan D, Teeling SP, McNamara M: PRISMA-P 2015 checklist for realist review protocol: a realist review protocol on the contribution of a Mental Health First Aider programme to staff health and wellbeing within an Irish hospital network. figshare. 2025. Publisher Full Text

[8] Gilmore B, McAuliffe E, Power J, et al.: Data analysis and synthesis within a realist evaluation: toward more transparent methodological approaches. Int J Qual. Methods. 2019; 18: 18. Publisher Full Text

[9] Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Jagosh J, et al.: Protocol—the RAMESES II study: developing guidance and reporting standards for realist evaluation. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(8): e008567. Publisher Full Text

[10] Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Westhorp G, et al.: Protocol-Realist and Metanarrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11: 115. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] Jorm AF, Patten SB, Brugha TS, et al.: Has increased provision of treatment reduced the prevalence of common mental disorders? Review of the evidence from four countries. World Psychiatry. 2017; 16(1): 90–99. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] Keown AM, Teeling SP, Mcnamara M: The contribution of leaders' and managers' attributes, values, principles, and behaviours to the sustainable implementation of lean in healthcare: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res. 2024; 7: 54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] Kinman A, Teoh KRH: What could make a difference to mental health of UK doctors? A review of the research evidence.2018. Reference Source

[14] Kitchener BA, Jorm AF: Mental Health First Aid: an international programme for early intervention. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2008; 2(1): 55–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] Lynch D: Workplace stress is ‘number one issue’ raised with HSE Employee Assistance Programme. The medical independent, {sourced 30th October 2025}, 2023. Reference Source

[16] Meadows GN, Prodan A, Patten S, et al.: Resolving the paradox of increased mental health expenditure and stable prevalence. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2019; 53(9): 844–850. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C; PICO: PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14: 579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] Mukumbang FC, Kabongo EM, Eastwood JG: Examining the application of retroductive theorizing in realist-informed studies. Int J Qual Methods. 2021; 20(1): 1–14. Publisher Full Text

[19] Pawson R: Digging for nuggets: how ‘Bad’ research can yield ‘Good’ evidence. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006; 9(2): 127–142. Publisher Full Text

[20] Pawson R: The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto. London: Sage; 2013. Publisher Full Text

[21] Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al.: Realist review -- a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10(Suppl 1): 21–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] Pawson R, Tilley N: An introduction to scientific realist evaluation. Sage, London; 1997. Publisher Full Text

[23] Rycroft-Malone J, Burton CR, Bucknall T, Graham ID, Hutchinson AM, Stacey D: Collaboration and co-production of knowledge in healthcare: opportunities and challenges. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(4): 221–223. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[24] Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al.: Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012; 7: 33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, et al.: Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007; 7(1): 16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] Teeling SP, Davies C, Barnard M, et al.: A rapid realist review of quality care process metrics implementation in nursing and midwifery practice. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021a; 18(22): 11932. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] Teeling SP, Dewing J: Baldie D: A realist inquiry to identify the contribution of Lean Six Sigma to person-centred care and cultures. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021b; 18(19): 10427. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] Wong G: Realist reviews in health policy and systems research. Evidence synthesis for health policy and systems: a methods guide. World Health Organization; 2018.

[29] Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al.: RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 2013; 11: 20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] Wong G, Westhorp G, Greenhalgh J, et al.: Quality and reporting standards, resources, training materials and information for realist evaluation: the RAMESES II project. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2017; 5(28): 1–108. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] Wong G, Westhorp G, Manzano A, et al.: RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Med. 2016; 14(1): 96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] World Health Organisation: mhGAP community toolkit: field test version.Geneva:World Health Organization. 2019; [accessed 14 Dec 2024]. Reference Source

A Realist Review Protocol on the Contribution of Mental Health First Aider Programmes to Staff Wellbeing within Hospital and associated healthcare settings

Abstract

Background

PICO (Population, Intervention, Context, Outcomes) framework.

Methods

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Use of realist inquiry

Define the scope of the review and develop initial theories

Develop the search strategy

Eligibility approach

Review primary studies and extract data

Synthesize evidence and develop conclusions

Refine theory iteratively and disseminate findings

Conclusion

Systematic review registration

Data availability statement

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

A Realist Review Protocol on the Contribution of Mental Health First Aider Programmes to Staff Wellbeing within Hospital and associated healthcare settings

Abstract

Background

PICO (Population, Intervention, Context, Outcomes) framework.

Methods

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Use of realist inquiry

Define the scope of the review and develop initial theories

Develop the search strategy

Eligibility approach

Review primary studies and extract data

Synthesize evidence and develop conclusions

Refine theory iteratively and disseminate findings

Conclusion

Systematic review registration

Data availability statement

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!