Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26719314›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2015

Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field.

Gemma Carey, Eleanor Malbon, Nicole Carey, Andrew Joyce, Brad Crammond, Alan Carey

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 187 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
187citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
17.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

187 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 413 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Teaching Systems Thinking in Postgraduate Public Health: A Scoping Review of Curricular Approaches.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

127 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Gemma CareyRegulatory Institutions Network Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Eleanor MalbonThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sax Institute, Sydney, Australia.
Nicole CareySelf-organizing Systems Research Group School of engineering and applied sciences Harvard University.
Andrew JoyceCentre for Social Impact, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Brad CrammondCentre for Epidemiology and Preventive Health. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Alan CareyMaths Science Institute Australian National University.
Australian National University · AUHarvard University · USMonash University · AUSwinburne University of Technology · AUThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis 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.

designA 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.

results4 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.

conclusionsThere 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 researchers.

Indexed as

Systems AnalysisBenchmarkingEvidence-Based MedicineModels, EconomicPublic Healthcomplexitysystems sciencesystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID26719314
PMCPMC4710830
OpenAlexW2232278549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.