The Application of Complexity Theory in Health and Social Care Research: A Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Complexity theory has been utilised by many researchers as an appropriate lens through which to examine health and care. Notwithstanding its potential value, many studies apply complexity theory in a tokenistic manner without engaging with its underlying concepts and underpinnings. Objectives: This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise available research which has utilised complexity theory in health and social care settings. The research question was: “How has complexity theory been applied in health and social care research?”. Eligibility criteria: Qualitative and quantitative empirical research that utilised complexity theory informed approaches, published in English between 2012 and 2021. Sources of evidence: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PSYCHINFO, The NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), The Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED). Additionally, a hand search of the reference lists of relevant articles was conducted. Charting methods: Data extraction was performed employing Covidence and a data extraction tool was created to produce a descriptive summary of the results, addressing the research question. The review employed the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) revised six-step framework and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Results: A total of 2021 records were identified. 676 duplicate entries were removed before screening and a further 1108 did not meet the inclusion criteria. In total, 61 articles were subjected to data abstraction. Complexity theory was poorly defined and described and was frequently applied as a theoretical and analytical framework. Studies were predominantly hospital or health system focused and did not encompass the full continuum of care. Several studies used complexity theory within qualitative research to analyse and code data. The review also identified several case studies in which authors sought to understand a setting or service using a complexity-informed lens. Most publications originated in the United States and Canada. Complexity was applied in contexts where multi-disciplinary teams were involved, which has implications for managing the complexity of context. To perform research into complex systems in which power law distributions operate, there is a requirement to interpret the processes of dynamicity and that requires qualitative and longitudinal studies. There is also value in an abductive logic of inquiry, which allows for the interweaving and entanglement of previous evidence into a greater understanding of the whole complex adaptive system. It is recognised that engaging with complex systems requires theoretical and methodological pluralism so researchers should embrace a rich tapestry of approaches to develop a rich understanding of the complex health and care systems in which we work. As there is currently no definitive procedure for reporting such studies, the authors propose guidance to be interpreted and adapted to support the reporting of theoretically and methodologically divergent research. Conclusion: Heterogeneity was inherent in the empirical studies regarding the application of complexity theory. The authors provide guidance on conducting primary research which uses complexity theory as a conceptual, theoretical or analytical framework which seeks to promote rigor and transparency in the area.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,108 | 0,275 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,054 | 0,045 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».