ReviewBMC global and public health2026
Participatory system dynamics modeling: advancing equity through contextualized implementation science in global health.
Review in BMC global and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- District health management teams as champions for implementing the WHO LIVE LIFE suicide-prevention framework in Rural Uganda: a pre-implementation qualitative study.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Co-creation in research, policy engagement and advocacy: Lessons and limits from two decades of practice at the African Population and Health Research Center.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implementation science is central to advancing health equity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet many interventions continue to fall short of sustained impact. These failures are not merely technical or logistical; rather, they stem from a deeper epistemic gap: the inability of dominant implementation approaches to account meaningfully for contextual complexity. By treating "context" as a static backdrop or checklist of barriers and facilitators, existing approaches overlook how dynamic interactions, institutional logics, and local power relations shape implementation outcomes over time. We argue that Participatory System Dynamics Modeling (PSD) offers a transformative shift. Unlike conventional methods, PSD integrates diverse sources of evidence, including administrative data, prior research, expert insight, and lived experiences, into a logically consistent, interactive simulation model. PSD invites stakeholders to co-create these models, surfacing feedback loops, time delays, trade-offs, and unintended consequences that traditional frameworks often miss. We outline how PSD enables researchers and practitioners to move beyond linear planning and surface-level stakeholder consultation by co-creating dynamic models that reflect local complexity, power dynamics, and feedback loops. Drawing from examples across LMICs, we illustrate how PSD strengthens implementation by aligning with local realities and enabling systemic reflection. We recommend embedding PSD into health planning, research, and training infrastructures as a capacity-building pathway to advance its methodological uptake in implementation science and strengthen the global capacity to deliver health interventions that are context-responsive, system-informed, and grounded in LMIC realities.
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.