Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26968157›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Scoping review of complexity theory in health services research.

David S Thompson, Xavier Fazio, Erika Kustra, Linda Patrick, Darren Stanley

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
–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

56 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A complexity theory-informed COPC approach to evaluation of mining health programmes.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 S ThompsonSchool of Nursing, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, ON, P7B 5E1, Canada. dsthomp1@lakeheadu.ca.
Xavier FazioFaculty of Education, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Avenue, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada.
Erika KustraTeaching and Learning Development, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada.
Linda PatrickFaculty of Nursing, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada.
Darren StanleyFaculty of Education, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset, Avenue, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are calls for better application of theory in health services research. Research exploring knowledge translation and interprofessional collaboration are two examples, and in both areas, complexity theory has been identified as potentially useful. However, how best to conceptualize and operationalize complexity theory in health services research is uncertain. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore how complexity theory has been incorporated in health services research focused on allied health, medicine, and nursing in order to offer guidance for future application. Given the extensiveness of how complexity theory could be conceptualized and ultimately operationalized within health services research, a scoping review of complexity theory in health services research is warranted.

methodsA scoping review of published research in English was conducted using CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. We searched terms synonymous with complexity theory.

resultsWe included 44 studies in this review: 27 were qualitative, 14 were quantitative, and 3 were mixed methods. Case study was the most common method. Long-term care was the most studied setting. The majority of research was exploratory and focused on relationships between health care workers. Authors most commonly used complexity theory as a conceptual framework for their study. Authors described complexity theory in their research in a variety of ways. The most common attributes of complexity theory used in health services research included relationships, self-organization, and diversity. A common theme across descriptions of complexity theory is that authors incorporate aspects of the theory related to how diverse relationships and communication between individuals in a system can influence change.

conclusionComplexity theory is incorporated in many ways across a variety of research designs to explore a multitude of phenomena.. Although complexity theory shows promise in health services research, particularly related to relationships and interactions, conceptual confusion and inconsistent application hinders the operationalization of this potentially important perspective. Generalizability from studies that incorporate complexity theory is, therefore, difficult. Heterogeneous conceptualization and operationalization of complexity theory in health services research suggests there is no universally agreed upon approach of how to use this theory in health services research. Future research should include clear definitions and descriptions of complexity and how it was used in studies. Clear reporting will aid in determining how best to use complexity theory in health services research.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchModels, TheoreticalSystems AnalysisConcept FormationHealth PersonnelHumansLong-Term CareTranslational Research, BiomedicalComplexity theoryHealth services researchTheory

Identifiers

PMID26968157
PMCPMC4788824

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.