Dataset Information

Systems thinking and complexity science methods and the policy process in non-communicable disease prevention: a systematic scoping review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Given the complex causal origins of many non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and the complex landscapes in which policies designed to tackle them are made and unfold, the need for systems thinking and complexity science (STCS) in developing effective policy solutions has been emphasised. While numerous methods informed by STCS have been applied to the policy process in NCD prevention, these applications have not been systematically catalogued. The aim of this scoping review is to identify existing applications of methods informed by STCS to the policy process for NCD prevention, documenting which domains of the policy process they have been applied to.

Methods and analysis

A systematic scoping review methodology will be used.

Identification

We will search Medline, SCOPUS, Embase and Web of Science using search terms combining STCS, NCD prevention and the policy process. All records published in English will be eligible for inclusion, regardless of study design.

Selection

We will screen titles and abstracts and extract data according to published guidelines for scoping reviews. In order to determine the quality of the included studies, we will use the approach developed by Dixon-Woods et al, excluding studies identified as fatally flawed, and determining the credibility and contribution of included studies.

Synthesis

We will identify relevant studies, summarising key data from each study and mapping applications of methods informed by STCS to different parts of the policy process. Review findings will provide a useful reference for policy-makers, outlining which domains of the policy process different methods have been applied to.

Ethics and dissemination

Formal ethical approval is not required, as the study does not involve primary data collection. The findings of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentations and summaries for key stakeholders.

SUBMITTER: Clifford Astbury C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8413942 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increasing interest in using systems thinking to tackle 'wicked' policy problems in preventive health, but this can be challenging for policy-makers because the literature is amorphous and often highly theoretical. Little is known about how best to support health policy-makers to gain skills in understanding and applying systems thinking for policy action. METHODS:In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 policy-makers who are participating in an Australian research collaboration that uses a systems approach. Our aim was to explore factors that support policy-makers to use systems approaches, and to identify any impacts of systems thinking on policy thinking or action, including the pathways through which these impacts occurred. RESULTS:All 18 policy-makers agreed that systems thinking has merit but some questioned its practical policy utility. A small minority were confused about what systems thinking is or which approaches were being used in the collaboration. The majority were engaged with systems thinking and this group identified concrete impacts on their work. They reported using systems-focused research, ideas, tools and resources in policy work that were contributing to the development of practical methodologies for policy design, scaling up, implementation and evaluation; and to new prevention narratives. Importantly, systems thinking was helping some policy-makers to reconceptualise health problems and contexts, goals, potential policy solutions and methods. In short, they were changing how they think about preventive health. CONCLUSION:These results show that researchers and policy-makers can put systems thinking into action as part of a research collaboration, and that this can result in discernible impacts on policy processes. In this case, action-oriented collaboration and capacity development over a 5-year period facilitated mutual learning and practical application. This indicates that policy-makers can get substantial applied value from systems thinking when they are involved in extended co-production processes that target policy impact and are supported by responsive capacity strategies.

Project description:Both the academic and the policy community are calling for wider application of mixed methods research, suggesting that combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods is most suitable to assess and understand the complexities of health interventions. In spite of recent growth in mixed methods studies, limited efforts have been directed towards appraising and synthetizing to what extent and how mixed methods have been applied specifically to Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed at filling this gap in knowledge, by exploring the scope and quality of mixed methods research in the African context. We conducted a scoping review applying the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and modified by Levac et al. to identify and extract data from relevant studies published between 1950 and 2013. We limited our search to peer-reviewed HPSR publications in English, which combined at least one qualitative and one quantitative method and focused on Africa. Among the 105 studies that were retained for data extraction, over 60% were published after 2010. Nearly 50% of all studies addressed topics relevant to Health Systems, while Health Policy and Health Outcomes studies accounted respectively for 40% and 10% of all publications. The quality of the application of mixed methods varied greatly across studies, with a relatively small proportion of studies stating clearly defined research questions and differentiating quantitative and qualitative elements, including sample sizes and analytical approaches. The methodological weaknesses observed could be linked to the paucity of specific training opportunities available to people interested in applying mixed methods to HPSR in LMICs as well as to the limitations on word limit, scope and peer-review processes at the journals levels. Increasing training opportunities and enhancing journal flexibility may result in more and better quality mixed methods publications.

Project description:PURPOSE: Over the past 7 decades, theories in the systems and complexity sciences have had a major influence on academic thinking and research. We assessed the impact of complexity science on general practice/family medicine. METHODS: We performed a historical integrative review using the following systematic search strategy: medical subject heading [humans] combined in turn with the terms complex adaptive systems, nonlinear dynamics, systems biology, and systems theory, limited to general practice/family medicine and published before December 2010. A total of 16,242 articles were retrieved, of which 49 were published in general practice/family medicine journals. Hand searches and snowballing retrieved another 35. After a full-text review, we included 56 articles dealing specifically with systems sciences and general/family practice. RESULTS: General practice/family medicine engaged with the emerging systems and complexity theories in 4 stages. Before 1995, articles tended to explore common phenomenologic general practice/family medicine experiences. Between 1995 and 2000, articles described the complex adaptive nature of this discipline. Those published between 2000 and 2005 focused on describing the system dynamics of medical practice. After 2005, articles increasingly applied the breadth of complex science theories to health care, health care reform, and the future of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: This historical review describes the development of general practice/family medicine in relation to complex adaptive systems theories, and shows how systems sciences more accurately reflect the discipline's philosophy and identity. Analysis suggests that general practice/family medicine first embraced systems theories through conscious reorganization of its boundaries and scope, before applying empirical tools. Future research should concentrate on applying nonlinear dynamics and empirical modeling to patient care, and to organizing and developing local practices, engaging in community development, and influencing health care reform.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is unclear how to engage a wide range of knowledge users in research. We aimed to map the evidence on engaging knowledge users with an emphasis on policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process through a scoping review. METHODS:We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Nine electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE), two grey literature sources (e.g., OpenSIGLE), and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched from 1996 to August 2016. We included any type of study describing strategies, barriers and facilitators, or assessing the impact of engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Frequency and thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS:After screening 8395 titles and abstracts followed by 394 full-texts, 84 unique documents and 7 companion reports fulfilled our eligibility criteria. All 84 documents were published in the last 10 years, and half were prepared in North America. The most common type of knowledge synthesis with knowledge user engagement was a systematic review (36%). The knowledge synthesis most commonly addressed an issue at the level of national healthcare system (48%) and focused on health services delivery (17%) in high-income countries (86%). Policy-makers were the most common (64%) knowledge users, followed by healthcare professionals (49%) and government agencies as well as patients and caregivers (34%). Knowledge users were engaged in conceptualization and design (49%), literature search and data collection (52%), data synthesis and interpretation (71%), and knowledge dissemination and application (44%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged as key informants through meetings and workshops as well as surveys, focus groups, and interviews either in-person or by telephone and emails. Knowledge user content expertise/awareness was a common facilitator (18%), while lack of time or opportunity to participate was a common barrier (12%). CONCLUSIONS:Knowledge users were most commonly engaged during the data synthesis and interpretation phases of the knowledge synthesis conduct. Researchers should document and evaluate knowledge user engagement in knowledge synthesis. REGISTRATION DETAILS:Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4dy53/ ).