2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development of the Systems Thinking for Health Actions framework: a literature review and a case study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Systems thinking is an approach that views systems with a holistic lens, focusing on how components of systems are interconnected. Specifically, the application of systems thinking has proven to be beneficial when applied to health systems. Although there is plenty of theory surrounding systems thinking, there is a gap between the theoretical use of systems thinking and its actual application to tackle health challenges. This study aimed to create a framework to expose systems thinking characteristics in the design and implementation of actions to improve health.

          Methods

          A systematised literature review was conducted and a Taxonomy of Systems Thinking Objectives was adapted to develop the new ‘Systems Thinking for Health Actions’ (STHA) framework. The applicability of the framework was tested using the COVID-19 response in Pakistan as a case study.

          Results

          The framework identifies six key characteristics of systems thinking: (1) recognising and understanding interconnections and system structure, (2) identifying and understanding feedback, (3) identifying leverage points, (4) understanding dynamic behaviour, (5) using mental models to suggest possible solutions to a problem and (6) creating simulation models to test policies. The STHA framework proved beneficial in identifying systems thinking characteristics in the COVID-19 national health response in Pakistan.

          Conclusion

          The proposed framework can provide support for those aiming to applying systems thinking while developing and implementing health actions. We also envision this framework as a retrospective tool that can help assess if systems thinking was applied in health actions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references71

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

            The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2023
                17 March 2023
                17 March 2023
                : 8
                : 3
                : e010191
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentEpidemiology and Public Health , Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute , Allschwil, Switzerland
                [2 ]University of Basel , Basel, Switzerland
                [3 ]departmentPublic Health , Child Advocacy International , Islamabad, Pakistan
                [4 ]departmentPublic Health , Institute of Development Management , Gaborone, Botswana
                [5 ]departmentAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research , World Health Organization , Geneve, Switzerland
                [6 ]departmentMonitoring Evaluation and Quality Assurance , Ministry of Health Botswana , Gaborone, Botswana
                [7 ]departmentDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Fazaia Medical College , Islamabad, Pakistan
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Daniel Cobos Muñoz; daniel.cobos@ 123456swisstph.ch
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7595-9046
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5276-3515
                Article
                bmjgh-2022-010191
                10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010191
                10030275
                36931663
                b11b9d64-fb6d-4a42-b715-e926de044b2a
                © World Health Organization 2023. Licensee BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License ( CC BY 3.0 IGO), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article’s original URL. Disclaimer: The author is a staff member of the World Health Organization. The author alone is responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of the World Health Organization.

                History
                : 28 July 2022
                : 19 January 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007855, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research;
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                2474
                Custom metadata
                unlocked
                free

                covid-19,health systems,qualitative study
                covid-19, health systems, qualitative study

                Comments

                Comment on this article