Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33228657›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Change and improvement 50 years in the making: a scoping review of the use of soft systems methodology in healthcare.

Hanna Augustsson, Kate Churruca, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 2 countries.

Hanna AugustssonCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. hanna.augustsson@mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6203-0676
Kate ChurrucaCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Macquarie University · AUKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 9100002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionImproving the quality of healthcare has proven to be a challenging task despite longstanding efforts. Approaches to improvements that consider the strong influence of local context as well as stakeholders' differing views on the situation are warranted. Soft systems methodology (SSM) includes contextual and multi-perspectival features. However, the way SSM has been applied and the outcomes of using SSM to stimulate productive change in healthcare have not been sufficiently investigated.

aimThis scoping review aimed to examine and map the use and outcomes of SSM in healthcare settings.

methodThe review was based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. We searched six academic databases to January 2019 for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. We also reviewed reference lists of included citations. Articles were included if they were empirical studies focused on the application of SSM in a healthcare setting. Two reviewers conducted the abstract review and one reviewer conducted the full-text review and extracted data on study characteristics, ways of applying SSM and the outcomes of SSM initiatives. Study quality was assessed using Hawker's Quality Assessment Tool.

resultA total of 49 studies were included in the final review. SSM had been used in a range of healthcare settings and for a variety of problem situations. The results revealed an inconsistent use of SSM including departing from Checkland's original vision, applying different tools and involving stakeholders idiosyncratically. The quality of included studies varied and reporting of how SSM had been applied was sometimes inadequate. SSM had most often been used to understand a problem situation and to suggest potential improvements to the situation but to a lesser extent to implement and evaluate these improvements.

conclusionSSM is flexible and applicable to a range of problem situations in healthcare settings. However, better reporting of how SSM has been applied as well as evaluation of different types of outcomes, including implementation and intervention outcomes, is needed in order to appreciate more fully the utility and contribution of SSM in healthcare.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansPeer ReviewChange managementCollaborationHealthcareParticipationSoft systems methodologyStakeholders

Identifiers

PMID33228657
PMCPMC7684911
OpenAlexW3107058957

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.