↓ Skip to main content

Scoping review of complexity theory in health services research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
418 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Scoping review of complexity theory in health services research
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1343-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

David S. Thompson, Xavier Fazio, Erika Kustra, Linda Patrick, Darren Stanley

Abstract

There are calls for better application of theory in health services research. Research exploring knowledge translation and interprofessional collaboration are two examples, and in both areas, complexity theory has been identified as potentially useful. However, how best to conceptualize and operationalize complexity theory in health services research is uncertain. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore how complexity theory has been incorporated in health services research focused on allied health, medicine, and nursing in order to offer guidance for future application. Given the extensiveness of how complexity theory could be conceptualized and ultimately operationalized within health services research, a scoping review of complexity theory in health services research is warranted. A scoping review of published research in English was conducted using CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. We searched terms synonymous with complexity theory. We included 44 studies in this review: 27 were qualitative, 14 were quantitative, and 3 were mixed methods. Case study was the most common method. Long-term care was the most studied setting. The majority of research was exploratory and focused on relationships between health care workers. Authors most commonly used complexity theory as a conceptual framework for their study. Authors described complexity theory in their research in a variety of ways. The most common attributes of complexity theory used in health services research included relationships, self-organization, and diversity. A common theme across descriptions of complexity theory is that authors incorporate aspects of the theory related to how diverse relationships and communication between individuals in a system can influence change. Complexity theory is incorporated in many ways across a variety of research designs to explore a multitude of phenomena.. Although complexity theory shows promise in health services research, particularly related to relationships and interactions, conceptual confusion and inconsistent application hinders the operationalization of this potentially important perspective. Generalizability from studies that incorporate complexity theory is, therefore, difficult. Heterogeneous conceptualization and operationalization of complexity theory in health services research suggests there is no universally agreed upon approach of how to use this theory in health services research. Future research should include clear definitions and descriptions of complexity and how it was used in studies. Clear reporting will aid in determining how best to use complexity theory in health services research.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 418 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Unknown 416 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 78 19%
Student > Master 59 14%
Researcher 55 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 8%
Other 22 5%
Other 78 19%
Unknown 92 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 85 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 80 19%
Social Sciences 54 13%
Psychology 17 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 4%
Other 61 15%
Unknown 105 25%
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 28 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,919,256
of 26,629,129 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,214
of 8,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,602
of 316,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#28
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,629,129 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 8,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 316,867 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 96 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 70% of its contemporaries.