» Articles » PMID: 33272945

The Compatibility of Reductionistic and Complexity Approaches in a Sociomedical Innovation Perspective

Overview
Journal BMJ Glob Health
Specialty Public Health
Date 2020 Dec 4
PMID 33272945
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Medical technologies, e-health and personalised medicine are rapidly changing the healthcare landscape. Successful implementation depends on interactions between the technology, the actors and the context. More traditional reductionistic approaches aim to understand isolated factors and linear cause-effect relations and have difficulties in addressing inter-relatedness and interaction. Complexity theory offers a myriad of approaches that focus specifically on behaviour and mechanisms that emerge from interactions between involved actors and the environment. These approaches work from the assumption that change does not take place in isolation and that interaction and inter-relatedness are central concepts to study. However, developments are proceeding fast and along different lines. This can easily lead to confusion about differences and usefulness in clinical and healthcare research and practice. Next to this, reductionistic and complexity approaches have their own merits and much is to be gained from using both approaches complementary. To this end, we propose three lines in complexity research related to health innovation and discuss ways in which complexity approaches and reductionistic approaches can act compatibly and thereby strengthen research designs for developing, implementing and evaluating health innovations.

Citing Articles

Fine-tuning the practical relevance of a quality framework for integrated nature-based interventions in healthcare facilities. A qualitative interview study.

Sterckx A, Delbaere B, De Blust G, Spacova I, Samson R, Van den Broeck K Front Public Health. 2024; 12:1379230.

PMID: 38898895 PMC: 11186510. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1379230.


Toward Inclusive Approaches in the Design, Development, and Implementation of eHealth in the Intellectual Disability Sector: Scoping Review.

van Calis J, Bevelander K, van der Cruijsen A, Leusink G, Naaldenberg J J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e45819.

PMID: 37252756 PMC: 10265410. DOI: 10.2196/45819.


Negotiating with digital self-monitoring: A qualitative study on how patients with multiple sclerosis use and experience digital self-monitoring within a scientific study.

Wendrich K, Krabbenborg L Health (London). 2023; 28(3):333-351.

PMID: 37198747 PMC: 11041077. DOI: 10.1177/13634593231175321.


Embracing complexity with systems thinking in general practitioners' clinical reasoning helps handling uncertainty.

Stolper E, Van Royen P, Jack E, Uleman J, Rikkert M J Eval Clin Pract. 2021; 27(5):1175-1181.

PMID: 33592677 PMC: 8518614. DOI: 10.1111/jep.13549.

References
1.
Greenhalgh T . Will COVID-19 be evidence-based medicine's nemesis?. PLoS Med. 2020; 17(6):e1003266. PMC: 7326185. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003266. View

2.
Ogilvie D, Adams J, Bauman A, Gregg E, Panter J, Siegel K . Using natural experimental studies to guide public health action: turning the evidence-based medicine paradigm on its head. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019; 74(2):203-208. PMC: 6993029. DOI: 10.1136/jech-2019-213085. View

3.
Diez Roux A . Complex systems thinking and current impasses in health disparities research. Am J Public Health. 2011; 101(9):1627-34. PMC: 3154209. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300149. View

4.
Catwell L, Sheikh A . Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systemic evaluation. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(8):e1000126. PMC: 2719100. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126. View

5.
Paina L, Peters D . Understanding pathways for scaling up health services through the lens of complex adaptive systems. Health Policy Plan. 2011; 27(5):365-73. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czr054. View