BMJ Open – Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field | Carey, Crammond, and Joyce (2020)

source:

(99+) (PDF) Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field | Gemma Carey, Brad Crammond, and Andrew Joyce – Academia.edu

Systems science and systems thinking
for public health: a systematic review
of the field
Gemma Carey,1 Eleanor Malbon,2 Nicole Carey,3 Andrew Joyce,4
Brad Crammond,5 Alan Carey6
To cite: Carey G, Malbon E,
Carey N, et al. Systems
science and systems thinking
for public health: a
systematic review of the field.
BMJ Open 2015;5:e009002.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-
009002
▸ Prepublication history and
additional material is
available. To view please visit
the journal (http://dx.doi.org/
10.1136/bmjopen-2015-
009002).
Received 6 June 2015
Revised 23 October 2015
Accepted 11 November 2015
1Regulatory Institutions
Network Australian National
University, Canberra,
Australia
2The Australian Prevention
Partnership Centre, Sax
Institute, Sydney, Australia
3Self-organizing Systems
Research Group School of
engineering and applied
sciences Harvard University
4Centre for Social Impact,
Swinburne University,
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
5Centre for Epidemiology and
Preventive Health. Monash
University, Melbourne,
Australia
6Maths Science Institute
Australian National University
Correspondence to
Dr Gemma Carey;
Gemma.carey@anu.edu.au


ABSTRACT
Objectives: This paper reports on findings from a
systematic review designed to investigate the state of
systems science research in public health. The
objectives were to: (1) explore how systems
methodologies are being applied within public health
and (2) identify fruitful areas of activity.
Design: A systematic review was conducted from
existing literature that draws on or uses systems
science (in its various forms) and relates to key public
health areas of action and concern, including tobacco,
alcohol, obesity and the social determinants of health.
Data analysis: 117 articles were included in the
review. An inductive qualitative content analysis was
used for data extraction. The following were
systematically extracted from the articles: approach,
methodology, transparency, strengths and weaknesses.
These were then organised according to theme (ie,
commonalities between studies within each category),
in order to provide an overview of the state of the field
as a whole. The assessment of data quality was
intrinsic to the goals of the review itself, and therefore,
was carried out as part of the analysis.
Results: 4 categories of research were identified from
the review, ranging from editorial and commentary
pieces to complex system dynamic modelling. Our
analysis of each of these categories of research
highlighted areas of potential for systems science to
strengthen public health efforts, while also revealing a
number of limitations in the dynamic systems
modelling being carried out in public health.
Conclusions: There is a great deal of interest in how
the application of systems concepts and approach
might aid public health. Our analysis suggests that soft
systems modelling techniques are likely to be the most
useful addition to public health, and align well with
current debate around knowledge transfer and policy.
However, the full range of systems methodologies is
yet to be engaged with by public health

source:

(99+) (PDF) Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field | Gemma Carey, Brad Crammond, and Andrew Joyce – Academia.edu