Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33203438›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2020

Applying systems thinking to knowledge mobilisation in public health.

Abby Haynes, Lucie Rychetnik, Diane Finegood, Michelle Irving, Louise Freebairn, Penelope Hawe

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Digital Health Innovation by Design: A Logic Model Scaffold for Rural, Regional, and Remote Settings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Adopting a systems-thinking approach to optimise dietary and exercise referral practices for cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Abby HaynesThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, Australia. abby.haynes@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5703-5683
Lucie RychetnikThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, Australia.
Diane FinegoodMorris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue and Department of Biomedical Physiology & Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.
Michelle IrvingThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, Australia.
Louise FreebairnThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, Australia.
Penelope HaweThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT9100003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextKnowledge mobilisation (KM) is a vital strategy in efforts to improve public health policy and practice. Linear models describing knowledge transfer and translation have moved towards multi-directional and complexity-attuned approaches where knowledge is produced and becomes meaningful through social processes. There are calls for systems approaches to KM but little guidance on how this can be operationalised. This paper describes the contribution that systems thinking can make to KM and provides guidance about how to put it into action.

methodsWe apply a model of systems thinking (which focuses on leveraging change in complex systems) to eight KM practices empirically identified by others. We describe how these models interact and draw out some key learnings for applying systems thinking practically to KM in public health policy and practice. Examples of empirical studies, tools and targeted strategies are provided.

findingsSystems thinking can enhance and fundamentally transform KM. It upholds a pluralistic view of knowledge as informed by multiple parts of the system and reconstituted through use. Mobilisation is conceived as a situated, non-prescriptive and potentially destabilising practice, no longer conceptualised as a discrete piece of work within wider efforts to strengthen public health but as integral to and in continual dialogue with those efforts. A systems approach to KM relies on contextual understanding, collaborative practices, addressing power imbalances and adaptive learning that responds to changing interactions between mobilisation activities and context.

conclusionSystems thinking offers valuable perspectives, tools and strategies to better understand complex problems in their settings and for strengthening KM practice. We make four suggestions for further developing empirical evidence and debate about how systems thinking can enhance our capacity to mobilise knowledge for solving complex problems - (1) be specific about what is meant by 'systems thinking', (2) describe counterfactual KM scenarios so the added value of systems thinking is clearer, (3) widen conceptualisations of impact when evaluating KM, and (4) use methods that can track how and where knowledge is mobilised in complex systems.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePublic HealthHumansKnowledgeLearningSystems AnalysisKnowledge mobilisationPolicy-makingPublic healthSystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID33203438
PMCPMC7670767

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.