Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37641151›Full record

SynthesisHealth research policy and systems2023

Combining systems thinking approaches and implementation science constructs within community-based prevention: a systematic review.

Jillian Whelan, Penny Fraser, Kristy A Bolton, Penelope Love, Claudia Strugnell, Tara Boelsen-Robinson, Miranda R Blake, Erik Martin, Steven Allender, Colin Bell

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health research policy and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Dietitians as System Builders: Advancing Equity, Sustainability and Health in Community Nutrition and Primary Care.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

10 authors.

Jillian WhelanSchool of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. jill.whelan@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9434-109X
Penny FraserSchool of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Kristy A BoltonSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Penelope LoveSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Claudia StrugnellSchool of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Tara Boelsen-RobinsonSchool of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Miranda R BlakeSchool of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Erik MartinSchool of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Steven AllenderSchool of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Colin BellSchool of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1151572National Health and Medical Research Council 1152968
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystems science offers methods for designing population health interventions while implementation science provides specific guidance for successful implementation. Integrating systems and implementation science may strengthen implementation and enhance and sustain systemic change to achieve system-level outcomes. Little is known about the extent to which these two approaches have been integrated to date. This review aimed to identify and synthesise the peer-reviewed literature that has reported the combined use of systems thinking approaches and implementation science constructs (within the same study), to deliver population health interventions.

methodsA systematic literature search of peer-reviewed original research was conducted across six databases from 2009 to 2021. Journal manuscripts were included if they: (1) reported on a population health study conducted in a community, (2) reported the use of a systems method in the design of the intervention, and (3) used an implementation science theory, framework or model in the delivery of the intervention. Data extracted related to the specific systems methods and definitions and implementation science constructs used. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess study quality.

resultsOf the 9086 manuscripts returned, 320 manuscripts were included for full-text review. Of these, 17 manuscripts that reported on 14 studies were included in the final extraction. The most frequently reported systems methods were a 'whole of community systems approach' (n = 4/14) and 'community-based system dynamics' (n = 2/14). Nineteen different implementation science theories, frameworks and models were used for intervention delivery, with RE-AIM being the only framework used in more than one study.

conclusionThere are few published peer-reviewed studies using systems thinking and implementation science for designing and delivering population health interventions. An exploration of synergies is worthwhile to operationalise alignment and improve implementation of systems thinking approaches. Review protocol registration PROSPERO CRD42021250419.

Indexed as

Implementation SciencePopulation HealthDatabases, FactualHumansResearch DesignSystems AnalysisComplexityImplementation scienceMethodologySystem science

Identifiers

PMID37641151
PMCPMC10463953

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.