Cargando…

Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review

BACKGROUND: The lens of complexity theory is widely advocated to improve health care delivery. However, empirical evidence that this lens has been useful in designing health care remains elusive. This review assesses whether it is possible to reliably capture evidence for efficacy in results or proc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brainard, Julii, Hunter, Paul R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5029105/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27647152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0492-5
_version_ 1782454464156794880
author Brainard, Julii
Hunter, Paul R.
author_facet Brainard, Julii
Hunter, Paul R.
author_sort Brainard, Julii
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The lens of complexity theory is widely advocated to improve health care delivery. However, empirical evidence that this lens has been useful in designing health care remains elusive. This review assesses whether it is possible to reliably capture evidence for efficacy in results or process within interventions that were informed by complexity science and closely related conceptual frameworks. METHODS: Systematic searches of scientific and grey literature were undertaken in late 2015/early 2016. Titles and abstracts were screened for interventions (A) delivered by the health services, (B) that explicitly stated that complexity science provided theoretical underpinning, and (C) also reported specific outcomes. Outcomes had to relate to changes in actual practice, service delivery or patient clinical indicators. Data extraction and detailed analysis was undertaken for studies in three developed countries: Canada, UK and USA. Data were extracted for intervention format, barriers encountered and quality aspects (thoroughness or possible biases) of evaluation and reporting. RESULTS: From 5067 initial finds in scientific literature and 171 items in grey literature, 22 interventions described in 29 articles were selected. Most interventions relied on facilitating collaboration to find solutions to specific or general problems. Many outcomes were very positive. However, some outcomes were measured only subjectively, one intervention was designed with complexity theory in mind but did not reiterate this in subsequent evaluation and other interventions were credited as compatible with complexity science but reported no relevant theoretical underpinning. Articles often omitted discussion on implementation barriers or unintended consequences, which suggests that complexity theory was not widely used in evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: It is hard to establish cause and effect when attempting to leverage complex adaptive systems and perhaps even harder to reliably find evidence that confirms whether complexity-informed interventions are usually effective. While it is possible to show that interventions that are compatible with complexity science seem efficacious, it remains difficult to show that explicit planning with complexity in mind was particularly valuable. Recommendations are made to improve future evaluation reports, to establish a better evidence base about whether this conceptual framework is useful in intervention design and implementation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0492-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5029105
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50291052016-09-29 Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review Brainard, Julii Hunter, Paul R. Implement Sci Systematic Review BACKGROUND: The lens of complexity theory is widely advocated to improve health care delivery. However, empirical evidence that this lens has been useful in designing health care remains elusive. This review assesses whether it is possible to reliably capture evidence for efficacy in results or process within interventions that were informed by complexity science and closely related conceptual frameworks. METHODS: Systematic searches of scientific and grey literature were undertaken in late 2015/early 2016. Titles and abstracts were screened for interventions (A) delivered by the health services, (B) that explicitly stated that complexity science provided theoretical underpinning, and (C) also reported specific outcomes. Outcomes had to relate to changes in actual practice, service delivery or patient clinical indicators. Data extraction and detailed analysis was undertaken for studies in three developed countries: Canada, UK and USA. Data were extracted for intervention format, barriers encountered and quality aspects (thoroughness or possible biases) of evaluation and reporting. RESULTS: From 5067 initial finds in scientific literature and 171 items in grey literature, 22 interventions described in 29 articles were selected. Most interventions relied on facilitating collaboration to find solutions to specific or general problems. Many outcomes were very positive. However, some outcomes were measured only subjectively, one intervention was designed with complexity theory in mind but did not reiterate this in subsequent evaluation and other interventions were credited as compatible with complexity science but reported no relevant theoretical underpinning. Articles often omitted discussion on implementation barriers or unintended consequences, which suggests that complexity theory was not widely used in evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: It is hard to establish cause and effect when attempting to leverage complex adaptive systems and perhaps even harder to reliably find evidence that confirms whether complexity-informed interventions are usually effective. While it is possible to show that interventions that are compatible with complexity science seem efficacious, it remains difficult to show that explicit planning with complexity in mind was particularly valuable. Recommendations are made to improve future evaluation reports, to establish a better evidence base about whether this conceptual framework is useful in intervention design and implementation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0492-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5029105/ /pubmed/27647152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0492-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Brainard, Julii
Hunter, Paul R.
Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review
title Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review
title_full Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review
title_fullStr Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review
title_short Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review
title_sort do complexity-informed health interventions work? a scoping review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5029105/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27647152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0492-5
work_keys_str_mv AT brainardjulii docomplexityinformedhealthinterventionsworkascopingreview
AT hunterpaulr docomplexityinformedhealthinterventionsworkascopingreview