Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRusoja, E
dc.contributor.authorHaynie, D
dc.contributor.authorSievers, J
dc.contributor.authorMustafee, N
dc.contributor.authorNelson, F
dc.contributor.authorReynolds, M
dc.contributor.authorSarriot, E
dc.contributor.authorSwanson, RC
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, B
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-03T09:46:09Z
dc.date.issued2018-01-30
dc.description.abstractRationale, aims, and objectives As the Sustainable Development Goals are rolled out worldwide, development leaders will be looking to the experiences of the past to improve implementation in the future. Systems thinking and complexity science (ST/CS) propose that health and the health system are composed of dynamic actors constantly evolving in response to each other and their context. While offering practical guidance for steering the next development agenda, there is no consensus as to how these important ideas are discussed in relation to health. This systematic review sought to identify and describe some of the key terms, concepts, and methods in recent ST/CS literature. Method Using the search terms “systems thinkin * AND health OR complexity theor* AND health OR complex adaptive system* AND health,” we identified 516 relevant full texts out of 3982 titles across the search period (2002‐2015). Results The peak number of articles were published in 2014 (83) with journals specifically focused on medicine/healthcare (265) and particularly the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (37) representing the largest number by volume. Dynamic/dynamical systems (n = 332), emergence (n = 294), complex adaptive system(s) (n = 270), and interdependent/interconnected (n = 263) were the most common terms with systems dynamic modelling (58) and agent‐based modelling (43) as the most common methods. Conclusions The review offered several important conclusions. First, while there was no core ST/CS “canon,” certain terms appeared frequently across the reviewed texts. Second, even as these ideas are gaining traction in academic and practitioner communities, most are concentrated in a few journals. Finally, articles on ST/CS remain largely theoretical illustrating the need for further study and practical application. Given the challenge posed by the next phase of development, gaining a better understanding of ST/CS ideas and their use may lead to improvements in the implementation and practice of the Sustainable Development Goals.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's African Health Initiative (grant number 2012158). The funding organization did not participate in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of manuscript.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 30 January 2018en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jep.12856
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/32290
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWileyen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29380477en_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder embargo until 30 January 2019 in compliance with publisher policyen_GB
dc.rights© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.en_GB
dc.subjectcomplex adaptive systemen_GB
dc.subjectcomplexity scienceen_GB
dc.subjecthealthen_GB
dc.subjectsystems thinkingen_GB
dc.titleThinking about complexity in health: A systematic review of the key systems thinking and complexity ideas in healthen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practiceen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record