Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27647152›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2016

Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review.

Julii Brainard, Paul R Hunter

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04356274 (Participatory System Dynamics vs Audit and Feedback), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT04356274 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Participatory System Dynamics vs Audit and Feedback: A Cluster Randomized Trial of Mechanisms of Implementation Change to Expand Reach of Evidence-based Addiction and Mental Health Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorPalo Alto Veterans Institute for ResearchRan2019 to 2027Enrolled720ConditionsPTSD, Depression, Alcohol Use Disorder, Opioid Use DisorderArmsParticipatory System Dynamics (PSD), Audit and Feedback (AF)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Developing the Quality in Nutrition Care Model for Dietitians (QUINCE-MOD) in primary care: A mixed-method survey of healthcare consumers and professionals.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Missed nursing care and complexity theory: a conceptual paper.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2021
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julii BrainardNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. j.brainard@uea.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5272-7995
Paul R HunterNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
University of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe lens of complexity theory is widely advocated to improve health care delivery. However, empirical evidence that this lens has been useful in designing health care remains elusive. This review assesses whether it is possible to reliably capture evidence for efficacy in results or process within interventions that were informed by complexity science and closely related conceptual frameworks.

methodsSystematic searches of scientific and grey literature were undertaken in late 2015/early 2016. Titles and abstracts were screened for interventions (A) delivered by the health services, (B) that explicitly stated that complexity science provided theoretical underpinning, and (C) also reported specific outcomes. Outcomes had to relate to changes in actual practice, service delivery or patient clinical indicators. Data extraction and detailed analysis was undertaken for studies in three developed countries: Canada, UK and USA. Data were extracted for intervention format, barriers encountered and quality aspects (thoroughness or possible biases) of evaluation and reporting.

resultsFrom 5067 initial finds in scientific literature and 171 items in grey literature, 22 interventions described in 29 articles were selected. Most interventions relied on facilitating collaboration to find solutions to specific or general problems. Many outcomes were very positive. However, some outcomes were measured only subjectively, one intervention was designed with complexity theory in mind but did not reiterate this in subsequent evaluation and other interventions were credited as compatible with complexity science but reported no relevant theoretical underpinning. Articles often omitted discussion on implementation barriers or unintended consequences, which suggests that complexity theory was not widely used in evaluation.

conclusionsIt is hard to establish cause and effect when attempting to leverage complex adaptive systems and perhaps even harder to reliably find evidence that confirms whether complexity-informed interventions are usually effective. While it is possible to show that interventions that are compatible with complexity science seem efficacious, it remains difficult to show that explicit planning with complexity in mind was particularly valuable. Recommendations are made to improve future evaluation reports, to establish a better evidence base about whether this conceptual framework is useful in intervention design and implementation.

Indexed as

CanadaDelivery of Health CareHumansQuality Assurance, Health CareUnited KingdomUnited StatesComplex adaptive systemsComplexity scienceHealth serviceInterventionsScoping review

Identifiers

PMID27647152
PMCPMC5029105
OpenAlexW2522454764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.