Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: A research methods review
Applying a complex systems perspective to public health evaluation may increase the relevance and strength of evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities. In this review of methods, we aimed to: (i) classify and describe different complex systems methods in evaluation applied to public...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Social science & medicine (1982) 2021-03, Vol.272, p.113697, Article 113697 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 113697 |
container_title | Social science & medicine (1982) |
container_volume | 272 |
creator | McGill, Elizabeth Er, Vanessa Penney, Tarra Egan, Matt White, Martin Meier, Petra Whitehead, Margaret Lock, Karen Anderson de Cuevas, Rachel Smith, Richard Savona, Natalie Rutter, Harry Marks, Dalya de Vocht, Frank Cummins, Steven Popay, Jennie Petticrew, Mark |
description | Applying a complex systems perspective to public health evaluation may increase the relevance and strength of evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities. In this review of methods, we aimed to: (i) classify and describe different complex systems methods in evaluation applied to public health; and (ii) examine the kinds of evaluative evidence generated by these different methods.
We adapted critical review methods to identify evaluations of public health interventions that used systems methods. We conducted expert consultation, searched electronic databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science), and followed citations of relevant systematic reviews. Evaluations were included if they self-identified as using systems- or complexity-informed methods and if they evaluated existing or hypothetical public health interventions. Case studies were selected to illustrate different types of complex systems evaluation.
Seventy-four unique studies met our inclusion criteria. A framework was developed to map the included studies onto different stages of the evaluation process, which parallels the planning, delivery, assessment, and further delivery phases of the interventions they seek to inform; these stages include: 1) theorising; 2) prediction (simulation); 3) process evaluation; 4) impact evaluation; and 5) further prediction (simulation). Within this framework, we broadly categorised methodological approaches as mapping, modelling, network analysis and ‘system framing’ (the application of a complex systems perspective to a range of study designs). Studies frequently applied more than one type of systems method.
A range of complex systems methods can be utilised, adapted, or combined to produce different types of evaluative evidence. Further methodological innovation in systems evaluation may generate stronger evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities in our complex world.
•Public health evaluators are interested in applying a complex systems perspective.•There is uncertainty about which methods to use and the findings they produce.•We reviewed the methods of complex systems evaluations in public health.•We developed a framework for complex systems methods and evaluation stages.•Further methodological development in this field is required. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2483812728</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0277953621000290</els_id><sourcerecordid>2483812728</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-77a05ae233214df1c6086808a5d5f83f2acf769c1ef540d2fe0deafd4c54d3e83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU2P0zAQhi0EYkvhL4AlLlxS_BHHLrdqtXxIK3GBs-W1x9RVEgdPUth_j6PucuDCaaSZZ94ZvS8hbzjbcca796cdZo8-DRB2ggm-41x2e_2EbLjRslGy1U_Jhgmtm72S3RV5gXhijHFm5HNyJaViplNqQ37cnF2_uDnlkeZIp-WuT54ewfXzkaZxhnKGcZ0ijSUP1FGfh6mH3xTvcYYB6QQFJ_BzOsMHeqAFEFzxRzrAfMwBa-Oc4NdL8iy6HuHVQ92S7x9vvl1_bm6_fvpyfbhtfNuaudHaMeVASCl4GyL3Xf3TMONUUNHIKJyPutt7DlG1LIgILICLofWqDRKM3JJ3F92p5J8L4GyHhB763o2QF7SiNdJwocWKvv0HPeWljPU7K5SUem9UdXVL9IXyJSMWiHYqaXDl3nJm1yzsyf7Nwq5Z2EsWdfP1g_5yt84e9x7Nr8DhAkA1pJpUbFWB0UNIpRpqQ07_PfIHD2-gXA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2533798511</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: A research methods review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>McGill, Elizabeth ; Er, Vanessa ; Penney, Tarra ; Egan, Matt ; White, Martin ; Meier, Petra ; Whitehead, Margaret ; Lock, Karen ; Anderson de Cuevas, Rachel ; Smith, Richard ; Savona, Natalie ; Rutter, Harry ; Marks, Dalya ; de Vocht, Frank ; Cummins, Steven ; Popay, Jennie ; Petticrew, Mark</creator><creatorcontrib>McGill, Elizabeth ; Er, Vanessa ; Penney, Tarra ; Egan, Matt ; White, Martin ; Meier, Petra ; Whitehead, Margaret ; Lock, Karen ; Anderson de Cuevas, Rachel ; Smith, Richard ; Savona, Natalie ; Rutter, Harry ; Marks, Dalya ; de Vocht, Frank ; Cummins, Steven ; Popay, Jennie ; Petticrew, Mark</creatorcontrib><description>Applying a complex systems perspective to public health evaluation may increase the relevance and strength of evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities. In this review of methods, we aimed to: (i) classify and describe different complex systems methods in evaluation applied to public health; and (ii) examine the kinds of evaluative evidence generated by these different methods.
We adapted critical review methods to identify evaluations of public health interventions that used systems methods. We conducted expert consultation, searched electronic databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science), and followed citations of relevant systematic reviews. Evaluations were included if they self-identified as using systems- or complexity-informed methods and if they evaluated existing or hypothetical public health interventions. Case studies were selected to illustrate different types of complex systems evaluation.
Seventy-four unique studies met our inclusion criteria. A framework was developed to map the included studies onto different stages of the evaluation process, which parallels the planning, delivery, assessment, and further delivery phases of the interventions they seek to inform; these stages include: 1) theorising; 2) prediction (simulation); 3) process evaluation; 4) impact evaluation; and 5) further prediction (simulation). Within this framework, we broadly categorised methodological approaches as mapping, modelling, network analysis and ‘system framing’ (the application of a complex systems perspective to a range of study designs). Studies frequently applied more than one type of systems method.
A range of complex systems methods can be utilised, adapted, or combined to produce different types of evaluative evidence. Further methodological innovation in systems evaluation may generate stronger evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities in our complex world.
•Public health evaluators are interested in applying a complex systems perspective.•There is uncertainty about which methods to use and the findings they produce.•We reviewed the methods of complex systems evaluations in public health.•We developed a framework for complex systems methods and evaluation stages.•Further methodological development in this field is required.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0277-9536</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1873-5347</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-5347</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33508655</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Case studies ; Citations ; Complex ; Complexity science ; Evaluation ; Evaluation methodologies ; Frame analysis ; Health disparities ; Health education ; Health Services ; Humans ; Innovations ; Intervention ; Mapping ; Methodological approaches ; Network analysis ; Practice ; Predictions ; Public Health ; Research Design ; Research methodology ; Simulation ; Systematic review ; Systems thinking</subject><ispartof>Social science & medicine (1982), 2021-03, Vol.272, p.113697, Article 113697</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Pergamon Press Inc. Mar 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-77a05ae233214df1c6086808a5d5f83f2acf769c1ef540d2fe0deafd4c54d3e83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-77a05ae233214df1c6086808a5d5f83f2acf769c1ef540d2fe0deafd4c54d3e83</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5354-1933 ; 0000-0002-0649-1846 ; 0000-0003-2475-3122 ; 0000-0002-3841-8467 ; 0000-0002-1861-6757 ; 0000-0002-3006-3681 ; 0000-0003-3631-627X ; 0000-0001-7790-5332 ; 0000-0001-9234-908X ; 0000-0002-3995-4923 ; 0000-0002-4040-200X ; 0000-0001-5614-6576 ; 0000-0002-9322-0656</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3549,27923,27924,33773,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33508655$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>McGill, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Er, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Penney, Tarra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Egan, Matt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meier, Petra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitehead, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lock, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson de Cuevas, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savona, Natalie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutter, Harry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Dalya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vocht, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cummins, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Popay, Jennie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petticrew, Mark</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: A research methods review</title><title>Social science & medicine (1982)</title><addtitle>Soc Sci Med</addtitle><description>Applying a complex systems perspective to public health evaluation may increase the relevance and strength of evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities. In this review of methods, we aimed to: (i) classify and describe different complex systems methods in evaluation applied to public health; and (ii) examine the kinds of evaluative evidence generated by these different methods.
We adapted critical review methods to identify evaluations of public health interventions that used systems methods. We conducted expert consultation, searched electronic databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science), and followed citations of relevant systematic reviews. Evaluations were included if they self-identified as using systems- or complexity-informed methods and if they evaluated existing or hypothetical public health interventions. Case studies were selected to illustrate different types of complex systems evaluation.
Seventy-four unique studies met our inclusion criteria. A framework was developed to map the included studies onto different stages of the evaluation process, which parallels the planning, delivery, assessment, and further delivery phases of the interventions they seek to inform; these stages include: 1) theorising; 2) prediction (simulation); 3) process evaluation; 4) impact evaluation; and 5) further prediction (simulation). Within this framework, we broadly categorised methodological approaches as mapping, modelling, network analysis and ‘system framing’ (the application of a complex systems perspective to a range of study designs). Studies frequently applied more than one type of systems method.
A range of complex systems methods can be utilised, adapted, or combined to produce different types of evaluative evidence. Further methodological innovation in systems evaluation may generate stronger evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities in our complex world.
•Public health evaluators are interested in applying a complex systems perspective.•There is uncertainty about which methods to use and the findings they produce.•We reviewed the methods of complex systems evaluations in public health.•We developed a framework for complex systems methods and evaluation stages.•Further methodological development in this field is required.</description><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Citations</subject><subject>Complex</subject><subject>Complexity science</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Evaluation methodologies</subject><subject>Frame analysis</subject><subject>Health disparities</subject><subject>Health education</subject><subject>Health Services</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Mapping</subject><subject>Methodological approaches</subject><subject>Network analysis</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Systems thinking</subject><issn>0277-9536</issn><issn>1873-5347</issn><issn>1873-5347</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU2P0zAQhi0EYkvhL4AlLlxS_BHHLrdqtXxIK3GBs-W1x9RVEgdPUth_j6PucuDCaaSZZ94ZvS8hbzjbcca796cdZo8-DRB2ggm-41x2e_2EbLjRslGy1U_Jhgmtm72S3RV5gXhijHFm5HNyJaViplNqQ37cnF2_uDnlkeZIp-WuT54ewfXzkaZxhnKGcZ0ijSUP1FGfh6mH3xTvcYYB6QQFJ_BzOsMHeqAFEFzxRzrAfMwBa-Oc4NdL8iy6HuHVQ92S7x9vvl1_bm6_fvpyfbhtfNuaudHaMeVASCl4GyL3Xf3TMONUUNHIKJyPutt7DlG1LIgILICLofWqDRKM3JJ3F92p5J8L4GyHhB763o2QF7SiNdJwocWKvv0HPeWljPU7K5SUem9UdXVL9IXyJSMWiHYqaXDl3nJm1yzsyf7Nwq5Z2EsWdfP1g_5yt84e9x7Nr8DhAkA1pJpUbFWB0UNIpRpqQ07_PfIHD2-gXA</recordid><startdate>202103</startdate><enddate>202103</enddate><creator>McGill, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Er, Vanessa</creator><creator>Penney, Tarra</creator><creator>Egan, Matt</creator><creator>White, Martin</creator><creator>Meier, Petra</creator><creator>Whitehead, Margaret</creator><creator>Lock, Karen</creator><creator>Anderson de Cuevas, Rachel</creator><creator>Smith, Richard</creator><creator>Savona, Natalie</creator><creator>Rutter, Harry</creator><creator>Marks, Dalya</creator><creator>de Vocht, Frank</creator><creator>Cummins, Steven</creator><creator>Popay, Jennie</creator><creator>Petticrew, Mark</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Pergamon Press Inc</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5354-1933</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0649-1846</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2475-3122</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3841-8467</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1861-6757</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3006-3681</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3631-627X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7790-5332</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9234-908X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3995-4923</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4040-200X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5614-6576</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9322-0656</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202103</creationdate><title>Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: A research methods review</title><author>McGill, Elizabeth ; Er, Vanessa ; Penney, Tarra ; Egan, Matt ; White, Martin ; Meier, Petra ; Whitehead, Margaret ; Lock, Karen ; Anderson de Cuevas, Rachel ; Smith, Richard ; Savona, Natalie ; Rutter, Harry ; Marks, Dalya ; de Vocht, Frank ; Cummins, Steven ; Popay, Jennie ; Petticrew, Mark</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-77a05ae233214df1c6086808a5d5f83f2acf769c1ef540d2fe0deafd4c54d3e83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Citations</topic><topic>Complex</topic><topic>Complexity science</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Evaluation methodologies</topic><topic>Frame analysis</topic><topic>Health disparities</topic><topic>Health education</topic><topic>Health Services</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Mapping</topic><topic>Methodological approaches</topic><topic>Network analysis</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Systems thinking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McGill, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Er, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Penney, Tarra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Egan, Matt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meier, Petra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitehead, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lock, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson de Cuevas, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savona, Natalie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutter, Harry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Dalya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vocht, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cummins, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Popay, Jennie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petticrew, Mark</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Social science & medicine (1982)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McGill, Elizabeth</au><au>Er, Vanessa</au><au>Penney, Tarra</au><au>Egan, Matt</au><au>White, Martin</au><au>Meier, Petra</au><au>Whitehead, Margaret</au><au>Lock, Karen</au><au>Anderson de Cuevas, Rachel</au><au>Smith, Richard</au><au>Savona, Natalie</au><au>Rutter, Harry</au><au>Marks, Dalya</au><au>de Vocht, Frank</au><au>Cummins, Steven</au><au>Popay, Jennie</au><au>Petticrew, Mark</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: A research methods review</atitle><jtitle>Social science & medicine (1982)</jtitle><addtitle>Soc Sci Med</addtitle><date>2021-03</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>272</volume><spage>113697</spage><pages>113697-</pages><artnum>113697</artnum><issn>0277-9536</issn><issn>1873-5347</issn><eissn>1873-5347</eissn><abstract>Applying a complex systems perspective to public health evaluation may increase the relevance and strength of evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities. In this review of methods, we aimed to: (i) classify and describe different complex systems methods in evaluation applied to public health; and (ii) examine the kinds of evaluative evidence generated by these different methods.
We adapted critical review methods to identify evaluations of public health interventions that used systems methods. We conducted expert consultation, searched electronic databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science), and followed citations of relevant systematic reviews. Evaluations were included if they self-identified as using systems- or complexity-informed methods and if they evaluated existing or hypothetical public health interventions. Case studies were selected to illustrate different types of complex systems evaluation.
Seventy-four unique studies met our inclusion criteria. A framework was developed to map the included studies onto different stages of the evaluation process, which parallels the planning, delivery, assessment, and further delivery phases of the interventions they seek to inform; these stages include: 1) theorising; 2) prediction (simulation); 3) process evaluation; 4) impact evaluation; and 5) further prediction (simulation). Within this framework, we broadly categorised methodological approaches as mapping, modelling, network analysis and ‘system framing’ (the application of a complex systems perspective to a range of study designs). Studies frequently applied more than one type of systems method.
A range of complex systems methods can be utilised, adapted, or combined to produce different types of evaluative evidence. Further methodological innovation in systems evaluation may generate stronger evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities in our complex world.
•Public health evaluators are interested in applying a complex systems perspective.•There is uncertainty about which methods to use and the findings they produce.•We reviewed the methods of complex systems evaluations in public health.•We developed a framework for complex systems methods and evaluation stages.•Further methodological development in this field is required.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>33508655</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5354-1933</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0649-1846</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2475-3122</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3841-8467</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1861-6757</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3006-3681</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3631-627X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7790-5332</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9234-908X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3995-4923</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4040-200X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5614-6576</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9322-0656</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0277-9536 |
ispartof | Social science & medicine (1982), 2021-03, Vol.272, p.113697, Article 113697 |
issn | 0277-9536 1873-5347 1873-5347 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2483812728 |
source | MEDLINE; Sociological Abstracts; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Case studies Citations Complex Complexity science Evaluation Evaluation methodologies Frame analysis Health disparities Health education Health Services Humans Innovations Intervention Mapping Methodological approaches Network analysis Practice Predictions Public Health Research Design Research methodology Simulation Systematic review Systems thinking |
title | Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: A research methods review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T14%3A03%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20public%20health%20interventions%20from%20a%20complex%20systems%20perspective:%20A%20research%20methods%20review&rft.jtitle=Social%20science%20&%20medicine%20(1982)&rft.au=McGill,%20Elizabeth&rft.date=2021-03&rft.volume=272&rft.spage=113697&rft.pages=113697-&rft.artnum=113697&rft.issn=0277-9536&rft.eissn=1873-5347&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2483812728%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2533798511&rft_id=info:pmid/33508655&rft_els_id=S0277953621000290&rfr_iscdi=true |