↓ Skip to main content

Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 4,045)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
21 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
912 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
516 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
741 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
Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1089-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trisha Greenhalgh, Chrysanthi Papoutsi

Abstract

Complexity is much talked about but sub-optimally studied in health services research. Although the significance of the complex system as an analytic lens is increasingly recognised, many researchers are still using methods that assume a closed system in which predictive studies in general, and controlled experiments in particular, are possible and preferred. We argue that in open systems characterised by dynamically changing inter-relationships and tensions, conventional research designs predicated on linearity and predictability must be augmented by the study of how we can best deal with uncertainty, unpredictability and emergent causality. Accordingly, the study of complexity in health services and systems requires new standards of research quality, namely (for example) rich theorising, generative learning, and pragmatic adaptation to changing contexts. This framing of complexity-informed health services research provides a backdrop for a new collection of empirical studies. Each of the initial five papers in this collection illustrates, in different ways, the value of theoretically grounded, methodologically pluralistic, flexible and adaptive study designs. We propose an agenda for future research and invite researchers to contribute to this on-going series.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 912 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 741 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 741 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 114 15%
Researcher 107 14%
Student > Master 95 13%
Other 53 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 4%
Other 164 22%
Unknown 175 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 144 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 114 15%
Social Sciences 88 12%
Psychology 36 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 27 4%
Other 105 14%
Unknown 227 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 724. 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 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#28,142
of 25,547,324 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#40
of 4,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#571
of 341,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,547,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 341,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.