Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27448393›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2016

Embedding research in health systems: lessons from complexity theory.

Louise Caffrey, Charles Wolfe, Christopher McKevitt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Missed nursing care and complexity theory: a conceptual paper.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Patient-initiated recruitment for clinical research: Evaluation of an outpatient letter research statement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Louise CaffreyKing's College London, Division of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, United Kingdom. louise.caffrey@kcl.ac.uk.
Charles WolfeKing's College London, Division of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Christopher McKevittKing's College London, Division of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10184
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternationally, there has been increasing focus on creating health research systems. This article aims to investigate the challenges of implementing apparently simple strategies to support the development of a health research system. We focus on a case study of an English National Health Service Hospital Trust that sought to implement the national recommendation that health organisations should introduce a statement about research on all patient admission letters.

methodsWe apply core concepts from complexity theory to the case study and undertake a documentary analysis of the email dialogue between staff involved in implementing this initiative.

resultsThe process of implementing a research statement in patient admission letters in one clinical service took 1 year and 21 days. The length of time needed was influenced firstly by adaptive self-organisation, underpinned by competing interests. Secondly, it was influenced by the relationship between systems, rather than simply being a product of issues within those systems. The relationship between the health system and the research system was weaker than might have been expected. Responsibilities were unclear, leading to confusion and delayed action.

conclusionsConventional ways of thinking about organisations suggest that change happens when leaders and managers change the strategic vision, structure or procedures in an organisation and then persuade others to rationally implement the strategy. However, health research systems are complex adaptive systems characterised by high levels of unpredictability due to self-organisation and systemic interactions, which give rise to 'emergent' properties. We argue for the need to study how micro-processes of organisational dynamics may give rise to macro patterns of behaviour and strategic organisational direction and for the use of systems approaches to investigate the emergent properties of health research systems.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDelivery of Health CarePatient AdmissionPatient SelectionCommunicationEnglandHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansLeadershipState MedicineComplexity theoryHealth research systemsImplementationOrganisational changeSystems approaches

Identifiers

PMID27448393
PMCPMC4957897
OpenAlexW2490465891

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.