|
|
||||||||
EDITORIAL |
Scott J. Leischow is with the Department of Family and Community Medicine and the Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson. Bobby Milstein is with the Division of Adult and Community Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints may be sent to Scott J. Leischow, PhD, Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724 (e-mail: sleischow{at}azcc.arizona.edu), or Bobby Milstein, MPH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, NE, Mail Stop K-67, Atlanta, GA 30341 (e-mail: bmilstein{at}cdc.gov).
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| THE CHALLENGE OF SYSTEMS THINKING |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Conventional forms of problem framing, action planning, and evaluation often exclude or ignore precisely those features of dynamic complexity that make public health challenges so formidable and public health responses so innovative. Through studies grounded in an explicit systems orientation, we may recognize both the value of understanding health as a system of structured relationships and the value of the diverse methodologies that exist for learning how such systems are organized, how they behave over time, and how they can be better governed in dynamic and democratic contexts. This issue of the Journal goes beyond highlighting the relevance of particular forms of analysis and synthesis that have evolved primarily in fields outside public health. It directs attention to the historical processes, practical challenges, and ethical considerations that arise when we attempt to transform systems that affect the publics health. Even more, it asks us to reflect critically on the meanings of "evidence" and "evidence-based policy and practice" within a systems orientation.
| CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN SYSTEMS THINKING |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Second, efforts to achieve a larger, more connected understanding of the public health enterprise must never obscure the continuing need for specialized studies, on which all good systems theory depends. Four years ago, in the introduction to a special issue of the journal Science on "systems biology," Chong and Ray noted that the delay between the articulation of general systems theory in the 1960s and the incorporation of those principles into modern systems biology was "necessary, primarily to accumulate sufficient descriptions of the parts to enable a reasonable reassembly of the whole."2(p1661) Likewise, it appears that the time has come for public health workers to reap the rewards that serious systems thinking and modeling may bring, and leading public health agencies have consistently identified this as a priority for the field.36 Recently, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Julie Gerberding named "dynamic systems and syndemic approaches" as research imperatives for protecting health, even while acknowledging that applications of this science in the health arena are in their infancy.7(p1404)
Third, a systems approach to health and health care dilemmas requires us to transcend academic boundaries and interact more effectively across organizational lines as we learn to understand and manage ever more complex challenges. A critical aspect of this work is the need for information exchange and synthesis. Considerable investments are being made to think systemically and combine information from diverse sources in an effort to thwart terrorism, control tobacco use, signal the onset of disease outbreaks, track the source of foodborne illnesses, and anticipate the long-term implications of childhood obesity. These and similar ventures are examples of how we may improve the public health enterprise through a systems perspective. They illustrate the importance of gathering and analyzing different types of data (e.g., biological, behavioral, environmental, administrative), integrating these data with prior research and experience, ensuring that infrastructures are in place to facilitate accurate interpretation of the contextualized information, thinking critically about "what if" scenarios, and communicating all of this information to those who can act on it.
Elaborate cyberinfrastructures, such as a national electronic medical records system, may soon emerge to help streamline these processes. But if such large-scale databases remain unlinked, they will still be "silos"disconnected repositories of information. With proper planning and safeguards against misuse, however, it may be possible to link information together in ways that provide a shared situational awareness of public health threats, available resources, and options for rapid and effective health protection efforts. Even better, such systems might better enable policy-makers to anticipate and forestall potential threats, saving both money and lives.
Such ambitious efforts are not without risk. For example, the potential exists to link not just medical records but local and national surveillance systems, commercial data on health-related purchase patterns (e.g., medications, tobacco, alcohol, food), and administrative data from the private and public sectors. These new and more complex ways of linking data and exploring hidden relationships carry profound ethical, legal, financial, and social implications that must be understood and described.
Fourth, many aspects of systems thinking have ancient philosophical roots, and their modern methodological manifestations are phenomenally diverse.8 Such heterogeneity challenges us to match public health problems with the appropriate methodology or mix of methodologies for studying them. For instance, the structure and evolution of sexual partner networks can be studied through the use of matrix algebra; causal feedback processes in the relationship between advertising and tobacco use may be examined through the use of differential equations and tested through computer simulation; complex patterns that emerge from seemingly simple interactions among individuals, some of whom carry a communicable virus, can be explored through agent-based models. These and many more techniques are flourishing in other areas of applied science, opening virtually limitless possibilities for innovative health professionals to learn from these other fields and extend their work.
| A NEW FRONTIER IN PUBLIC HEALTH |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We must guard against the tendency to acknowledge the presence of complex relationships in shaping population health while employing analytic methods or program practices that exclude key parameters or assume independence among those that are included. Systems thinking compels us to study complex health-related phenomena rigorously, but with appropriate techniques. As Green asks, "Will [systems science] achieve methodologically what ecological approaches have offered conceptually as a way of encompassing the multiple levels necessary to understand and harness the reciprocal relationships among biology, behavior, and environments?"9(p408)
We believe that systems-oriented inquiry may point the way toward a promising new frontier for public health action in response to the critical challenges of our time. This issue of the Journal provides a glimpse into this frontier. It does not attempt to prescribe what systems approaches should be. Instead, it offers prototypical examples of the eclectic ventures that are now being explored under the umbrella of systems thinking and modeling. The intent is to educate health professionals about the existence of these projects, stimulate our collective thinking about their potential, and open a wider dialogue about the utility of the information they reveal.
| Footnotes |
|---|
Accepted for publication November 19, 2005.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Chong L, Ray LB. Wholeistic biology. Science 2002;295:1661.[Abstract]
3. Institute of Medicine. The Future of the Publics Health in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002.
4. The World Health Report 2000: Health Systems: Improving Performance. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000. Report no. 924156198X.
5. From Silos to Systems: Using Performance Management to Improve the Public Health. Seattle: University of Washington, Turning Point National Program Office; 2003.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Spotlight on syndemics. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/syndemics. Accessed December 15, 2002.
7. Gerberding JL. Protecting health: the new research imperative. JAMA. 2005;294(11):14031406.
8. Midgley G. Systems Thinking. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2003.
9. Green LW. Public health asks of systems science: to advance our evidence-based practice, can you help us get more practice-based evidence? Am J Public Health. 2006;96:406409.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
H. Balcazar, M. E. Northridge, G. C. Benjamin, F. Kapadia, and N. E. Hann Resolving Conflict Am J Public Health, March 1, 2009; 99(3): 394 - 396. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Shiell, P. Hawe, and L. Gold Complex interventions or complex systems? Implications for health economic evaluation BMJ, June 7, 2008; 336(7656): 1281 - 1283. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
Read all eLetters
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |