Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24935344›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2014

Advancing the application of systems thinking in health: why cure crowds out prevention.

David Bishai, Ligia Paina, Qingfeng Li, David H Peters, Adnan A Hyder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Advancing the application of systems thinking in health.Health research policy and systems · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David BishaiDepartment of Population Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N, Wolfe St,, Room E4622, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. dbishai1@jhu.edu.
Ligia Paina
Qingfeng Li
David H Peters
Adnan A Hyder

Funding

Research Infrastructure for the Hopkins Population CenterR24HD042854 · NICHD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CHERLIN, ANDREW J · 2003 to 2017
$5.1M
NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD042854
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis paper presents a system dynamics computer simulation model to illustrate unintended consequences of apparently rational allocations to curative and preventive services.

methodsA modeled population is subject to only two diseases. Disease A is a curable disease that can be shortened by curative care. Disease B is an instantly fatal but preventable disease. Curative care workers are financed by public spending and private fees to cure disease A. Non-personal, preventive services are delivered by public health workers supported solely by public spending to prevent disease B. Each type of worker tries to tilt the balance of government spending towards their interests. Their influence on the government is proportional to their accumulated revenue.

resultsThe model demonstrates effects on lost disability-adjusted life years and costs over the course of several epidemics of each disease. Policy interventions are tested including: i) an outside donor rationally donates extra money to each type of disease precisely in proportion to the size of epidemics of each disease; ii) lobbying is eliminated; iii) fees for personal health services are eliminated; iv) the government continually rebalances the funding for prevention by ring-fencing it to protect it from lobbying.The model exhibits a "spend more get less" equilibrium in which higher revenue by the curative sector is used to influence government allocations away from prevention towards cure. Spending more on curing disease A leads paradoxically to a higher overall disease burden of unprevented cases of disease B. This paradoxical behavior of the model can be stopped by eliminating lobbying, eliminating fees for curative services, and ring-fencing public health funding.

conclusionsWe have created an artificial system as a laboratory to gain insights about the trade-offs between curative and preventive health allocations, and the effect of indicative policy interventions. The underlying dynamics of this artificial system resemble features of modern health systems where a self-perpetuating industry has grown up around disease-specific curative programs like HIV/AIDS or malaria. The model shows how the growth of curative care services can crowd both fiscal and policy space for the practice of population level prevention work, requiring dramatic interventions to overcome these trends.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDelivery of Health CareFinancing, OrganizedHealth Care RationingHealth ExpendituresHealth PolicyHealth ResourcesHumansLobbyingModels, EconomicPreventive MedicineQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID24935344
PMCPMC4073815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.