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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Social science & medicine (1982) 2021-03, Vol.272, p.113697, Article 113697
Hauptverfasser: 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
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Social science &amp; 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 &amp; 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