↓ Skip to main content

Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do complexity-informed health interventions work? A scoping review
Published in
Implementation Science, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0492-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julii Brainard, Paul R. Hunter

Abstract

The lens of complexity theory is widely advocated to improve health care delivery. However, empirical evidence that this lens has been useful in designing health care remains elusive. This review assesses whether it is possible to reliably capture evidence for efficacy in results or process within interventions that were informed by complexity science and closely related conceptual frameworks. Systematic searches of scientific and grey literature were undertaken in late 2015/early 2016. Titles and abstracts were screened for interventions (A) delivered by the health services, (B) that explicitly stated that complexity science provided theoretical underpinning, and (C) also reported specific outcomes. Outcomes had to relate to changes in actual practice, service delivery or patient clinical indicators. Data extraction and detailed analysis was undertaken for studies in three developed countries: Canada, UK and USA. Data were extracted for intervention format, barriers encountered and quality aspects (thoroughness or possible biases) of evaluation and reporting. From 5067 initial finds in scientific literature and 171 items in grey literature, 22 interventions described in 29 articles were selected. Most interventions relied on facilitating collaboration to find solutions to specific or general problems. Many outcomes were very positive. However, some outcomes were measured only subjectively, one intervention was designed with complexity theory in mind but did not reiterate this in subsequent evaluation and other interventions were credited as compatible with complexity science but reported no relevant theoretical underpinning. Articles often omitted discussion on implementation barriers or unintended consequences, which suggests that complexity theory was not widely used in evaluation. It is hard to establish cause and effect when attempting to leverage complex adaptive systems and perhaps even harder to reliably find evidence that confirms whether complexity-informed interventions are usually effective. While it is possible to show that interventions that are compatible with complexity science seem efficacious, it remains difficult to show that explicit planning with complexity in mind was particularly valuable. Recommendations are made to improve future evaluation reports, to establish a better evidence base about whether this conceptual framework is useful in intervention design and implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 134 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 21%
Student > Master 19 14%
Researcher 17 13%
Other 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 25 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 23%
Social Sciences 23 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 8%
Psychology 9 7%
Computer Science 6 4%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 33 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#4,576,247
of 25,392,205 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#838
of 1,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,229
of 328,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#16
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.