Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42819409›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2026

Learning from 30 years of systems thinking in healthcare.

Christian von Plessen, Paul Batalden, Peter Lachman, Julie K Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Christian von PlessenUniversity Center for Primary Care and Public Health, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Paul BataldenSchool of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
Peter LachmanPatient Safety Movement Foundation, Irvine, CA, United States.
Julie K JohnsonDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systems thinking is a foundational discipline for the quality improvement practitioner. A 1997 publication on building knowledge of healthcare as a system created a bridge between system thinking and quality management, summarized the thinking about systems thinking and quality improvement at that time, and created a 10-step exercise to guide participants in applying systems thinking in their own healthcare settings. During the past 30 years, our understanding of how systems thinking can be applied in healthcare has evolved. We now recognize several limitations to our previous thinking, in particular, the need to distinguish between product logic and service logic. Products are particularly well-suited for quality improvement initiatives that address standardization of linear processes while services are not. Further, we need to consider the role of coproduction for the person seeking care and the relationship and communication with the clinical team. Finally, we must design the system to include care that transcends organizational boundaries. In essence, we need to apply systems thinking to care that is non-linear, involves multiple organizations, and importantly, is coproduced with the patient. We propose a revised and updated systems thinking exercise to help healthcare leaders and patients to apply this discipline in their daily practice.

Indexed as

coproductionhealthcare quality and safetyproduct dominant logicservice dominant logicsystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID42819409
PMCPMC13624103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.