ReviewBMJ global health2020
The compatibility of reductionistic and complexity approaches in a sociomedical innovation perspective.
Review in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reviewing a Theory Life Cycle in Disaster Management.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026Pooled it
- Unveiling therapeutic targets and preventive components for kidney insufficiency and blood stasis-type BPH: bridging metabolomics, network pharmacology and reverse screening.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Negotiating with digital self-monitoring: A qualitative study on how patients with multiple sclerosis use and experience digital self-monitoring within a scientific study.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2024Article
- Fine-tuning the practical relevance of a quality framework for integrated nature-based interventions in healthcare facilities. A qualitative interview study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Toward Inclusive Approaches in the Design, Development, and Implementation of eHealth in the Intellectual Disability Sector: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Embracing complexity with systems thinking in general practitioners' clinical reasoning helps handling uncertainty.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical technologies, e-health and personalised medicine are rapidly changing the healthcare landscape. Successful implementation depends on interactions between the technology, the actors and the context. More traditional reductionistic approaches aim to understand isolated factors and linear cause-effect relations and have difficulties in addressing inter-relatedness and interaction. Complexity theory offers a myriad of approaches that focus specifically on behaviour and mechanisms that emerge from interactions between involved actors and the environment. These approaches work from the assumption that change does not take place in isolation and that interaction and inter-relatedness are central concepts to study. However, developments are proceeding fast and along different lines. This can easily lead to confusion about differences and usefulness in clinical and healthcare research and practice. Next to this, reductionistic and complexity approaches have their own merits and much is to be gained from using both approaches complementary. To this end, we propose three lines in complexity research related to health innovation and discuss ways in which complexity approaches and reductionistic approaches can act compatibly and thereby strengthen research designs for developing, implementing and evaluating health innovations.
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.