ArticleEvaluation and program planning2018
Mind maps and network analysis to evaluate conceptualization of complex issues: A case example evaluating systems science workshops for childhood obesity prevention.
Article in Evaluation and program planning, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding and Addressing Severe Maternal Morbidity Among Black Women in Texas: Findings From a System Dynamics Group Model Building Study.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Assessing Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Activities in the Denver, Colorado, Metropolitan Area: Building on an Existing Network to Enhance Emphasis on Equity.American journal of public health · 2026Article
- Tools for Supporting the MCH Workforce in Addressing Complex Challenges: A Scoping Review of System Dynamics Modeling in Maternal and Child Health.Maternal and child health journal · 2022Article
- A systems map of the determinants of child health inequalities in England at the local level.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Across disciplines, it is common practice to bring together groups to solve complex problems. Facilitators are often asked to help groups organize information about and better understand the problem in order to develop and prioritize solutions. However, despite existence of several methods to elicit and characterize how individuals and groups think about and conceptualize an issue, many are difficult to implement in practice-based settings where resources such as technology and participant time are limited and research questions shift over time. This paper describes an easy-to-implement diagramming technique for eliciting conceptualization and a flexible network analysis method for characterizing changes in both individual and group conceptualization. We use a case example to illustrate how we used the methods to evaluate African American adolescent's conceptual understanding of obesity before and after participating in a series of four systems thinking workshops. The methods produced results that were sensitive to changes in conceptualization that were likely driven by the specific activities employed during the workshop sessions. The methods appear strong for capturing salient levels of conceptualization at both individual and collective levels. The paper concludes with a critical examination of strengths and weaknesses of the methods and implications for future practice and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.