Critical realism in nursing: an emerging approach

Critical realism, a philosophical framework originally developed by Roy Bhaskar in the 1970s, represents a relatively new approach to research generally and to nursing research in particular. This article explores the ontological and epistemological tenets of critical realism and examines the application of critical realist principles to nursing research and practice through a review of the literature. It is evident that few published nursing research studies have, as of yet, utilized critical realism as their paradigm of choice. Both the strengths and limitations of the presentation and use of critical realism in these studies are discussed in this article. Given the varying degrees of success of the authors in explicating critical realism as a philosophical framework, the value of critical realism to the research study, and the ways in which usage of the critical realist framework influenced development of the study and interpretation of findings, it is evident that the quality of future publications espousing the use of critical realism must continue to be strengthened significantly.     

Adverse Event Management in Mass Drug Administration for Neglected Tropical Diseases

The ethical challenges of reporting and managing adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) in the context of mass drug administration (MDA) for the treatment of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) require reassessment of domestic and international policies on a global scale. Although the World Health Organization has set forth AE/SAE guidelines specifically for NTD MDA that incorporate suspected causality, and recommends that only SAEs get reported in this setting, most regulatory agencies continue to require the reporting of all SAEs exhibiting even a merely temporal relationship to activities associated with an MDA program. This greatly increases the potential for excess “noise” and undue risk aversion and is not only impractical but arguably unethical where huge proportions of populations are being treated for devastating diseases, and no good baseline exists against which to compare possible AE/SAE reports. Other population-specific variables that might change the way drug safety ought to be assessed include differing efficacy rates of a drug, background morbidity/mortality rates of the target disease in question, the growth rate of the incidence of disease, the availability of rescue or salvage therapies, and the willingness of local populations to take risks that other populations might not. The fact that NTDs are controllable and potentially eradicable with well-tolerated, effective, existing drugs might further alter our assessment of MDA safety and AE/SAE tolerability. At the same time, diffuseness of population, communication barriers, lack of resources, and other difficult surveillance challenges may present in NTD-affected settings. These limitations could impair the ability to monitor an MDA program?s success, as well as hinder efforts to obtain informed consent or provide rescue therapy. Denying beneficial research interventions and MDA programs intended to benefit millions requires sound ethical justification based on more than the identification of and rote response to AEs and SAEs.