Evaluating complex healthcare systems: A critique of four approaches

Heather Boon, Hugh MacPherson, Sue Fleishman, Sameline Grimsgaard, Mary S Koithan, Arne Johan Norheim, Harald Walach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to bring clarity to the emerging conceptual and methodological literature that focuses on understanding and evaluating complex or 'whole' systems of healthcare. An international working group reviewed literature from interdisciplinary or interprofessional groups describing approaches to the evaluation of complex systems of healthcare. The following four key approaches were identified: a framework from the MRC (UK), whole systems research, whole medical systems research described by NCCAM (USA) and a model from NAFKAM (Norway). Main areas of congruence include acknowledgment of the inherent complexity of many healthcare interventions and the need to find new ways to evaluate these; the need to describe and understand the components of complex interventions in context (as they are actually practiced); the necessity of using mixed methods including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (explanatory and pragmatic) and qualitative approaches; the perceived benefits of a multidisciplinary team approach to research; and the understanding that methodological developments in this field can be applied to both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as well as conventional therapies. In contrast, the approaches differ in the following ways: terminology used, the extent to which the approach attempts to be applicable to both CAM and conventional medical interventions; the prioritization of research questions (in order of what should be done first) especially with respect to how the 'definitive' RCT fits into the process of assessing complex healthcare systems; and the need for a staged approach. There appears to be a growing international understanding of the need for a new perspective on assessing complex healthcare systems.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)279-285
Number of pages7
JournalEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Volume4
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2007

Fingerprint

Complementary Therapies
Delivery of Health Care
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research
Norway
Terminology
Biomedical Research
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Complex interventions
  • Research methods
  • Whole systems research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Complementary and alternative medicine

Cite this

Evaluating complex healthcare systems : A critique of four approaches. / Boon, Heather; MacPherson, Hugh; Fleishman, Sue; Grimsgaard, Sameline; Koithan, Mary S; Norheim, Arne Johan; Walach, Harald.

In: Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 3, 09.2007, p. 279-285.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Boon, H, MacPherson, H, Fleishman, S, Grimsgaard, S, Koithan, MS, Norheim, AJ & Walach, H 2007, 'Evaluating complex healthcare systems: A critique of four approaches', Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 279-285. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecam/nel079
Boon, Heather ; MacPherson, Hugh ; Fleishman, Sue ; Grimsgaard, Sameline ; Koithan, Mary S ; Norheim, Arne Johan ; Walach, Harald. / Evaluating complex healthcare systems : A critique of four approaches. In: Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2007 ; Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 279-285.
@article{644e93b192474afb8578abbd3d1c2238,
title = "Evaluating complex healthcare systems: A critique of four approaches",
abstract = "The purpose of this paper is to bring clarity to the emerging conceptual and methodological literature that focuses on understanding and evaluating complex or 'whole' systems of healthcare. An international working group reviewed literature from interdisciplinary or interprofessional groups describing approaches to the evaluation of complex systems of healthcare. The following four key approaches were identified: a framework from the MRC (UK), whole systems research, whole medical systems research described by NCCAM (USA) and a model from NAFKAM (Norway). Main areas of congruence include acknowledgment of the inherent complexity of many healthcare interventions and the need to find new ways to evaluate these; the need to describe and understand the components of complex interventions in context (as they are actually practiced); the necessity of using mixed methods including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (explanatory and pragmatic) and qualitative approaches; the perceived benefits of a multidisciplinary team approach to research; and the understanding that methodological developments in this field can be applied to both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as well as conventional therapies. In contrast, the approaches differ in the following ways: terminology used, the extent to which the approach attempts to be applicable to both CAM and conventional medical interventions; the prioritization of research questions (in order of what should be done first) especially with respect to how the 'definitive' RCT fits into the process of assessing complex healthcare systems; and the need for a staged approach. There appears to be a growing international understanding of the need for a new perspective on assessing complex healthcare systems.",
keywords = "Complex interventions, Research methods, Whole systems research",
author = "Heather Boon and Hugh MacPherson and Sue Fleishman and Sameline Grimsgaard and Koithan, {Mary S} and Norheim, {Arne Johan} and Harald Walach",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1093/ecam/nel079",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "279--285",
journal = "Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine",
issn = "1741-427X",
publisher = "Hindawi Publishing Corporation",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating complex healthcare systems

T2 - A critique of four approaches

AU - Boon, Heather

AU - MacPherson, Hugh

AU - Fleishman, Sue

AU - Grimsgaard, Sameline

AU - Koithan, Mary S

AU - Norheim, Arne Johan

AU - Walach, Harald

PY - 2007/9

Y1 - 2007/9

N2 - The purpose of this paper is to bring clarity to the emerging conceptual and methodological literature that focuses on understanding and evaluating complex or 'whole' systems of healthcare. An international working group reviewed literature from interdisciplinary or interprofessional groups describing approaches to the evaluation of complex systems of healthcare. The following four key approaches were identified: a framework from the MRC (UK), whole systems research, whole medical systems research described by NCCAM (USA) and a model from NAFKAM (Norway). Main areas of congruence include acknowledgment of the inherent complexity of many healthcare interventions and the need to find new ways to evaluate these; the need to describe and understand the components of complex interventions in context (as they are actually practiced); the necessity of using mixed methods including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (explanatory and pragmatic) and qualitative approaches; the perceived benefits of a multidisciplinary team approach to research; and the understanding that methodological developments in this field can be applied to both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as well as conventional therapies. In contrast, the approaches differ in the following ways: terminology used, the extent to which the approach attempts to be applicable to both CAM and conventional medical interventions; the prioritization of research questions (in order of what should be done first) especially with respect to how the 'definitive' RCT fits into the process of assessing complex healthcare systems; and the need for a staged approach. There appears to be a growing international understanding of the need for a new perspective on assessing complex healthcare systems.

AB - The purpose of this paper is to bring clarity to the emerging conceptual and methodological literature that focuses on understanding and evaluating complex or 'whole' systems of healthcare. An international working group reviewed literature from interdisciplinary or interprofessional groups describing approaches to the evaluation of complex systems of healthcare. The following four key approaches were identified: a framework from the MRC (UK), whole systems research, whole medical systems research described by NCCAM (USA) and a model from NAFKAM (Norway). Main areas of congruence include acknowledgment of the inherent complexity of many healthcare interventions and the need to find new ways to evaluate these; the need to describe and understand the components of complex interventions in context (as they are actually practiced); the necessity of using mixed methods including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (explanatory and pragmatic) and qualitative approaches; the perceived benefits of a multidisciplinary team approach to research; and the understanding that methodological developments in this field can be applied to both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as well as conventional therapies. In contrast, the approaches differ in the following ways: terminology used, the extent to which the approach attempts to be applicable to both CAM and conventional medical interventions; the prioritization of research questions (in order of what should be done first) especially with respect to how the 'definitive' RCT fits into the process of assessing complex healthcare systems; and the need for a staged approach. There appears to be a growing international understanding of the need for a new perspective on assessing complex healthcare systems.

KW - Complex interventions

KW - Research methods

KW - Whole systems research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=52449092277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=52449092277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ecam/nel079

DO - 10.1093/ecam/nel079

M3 - Article

C2 - 17965757

AN - SCOPUS:52449092277

VL - 4

SP - 279

EP - 285

JO - Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

JF - Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

SN - 1741-427X

IS - 3

ER -