Systems thinking: a different window on the world of implementation and global exchange of behavioral medicine evidence

Allan Best & Jessie E Saul

Translational Behavioral Medicine Practice, Policy, Research ISSN 1869-6716 Volume 1 Number 2 Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. (2011) 1:361-363 DOI 10.1007/ s13142-011-0050-2

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Society of Behavioral Medicine. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your work, please use the accepted authors version for posting to your own website or your institutions repository. You may further deposit the accepted authors version on a funders repository at a funders request, provided it is not made publicly available until 12 months after publication.

1 23

Author's personal copy

TBM
Systems thinking: a different window on the world of implementation and global exchange of behavioral medicine evidence
Allan Best, PhD,1 Jessie E Saul, PhD 2
THE CHALLENGE Building solid and user-friendly bridges from the science of the developed world to the realities of low- to middle-income counties is a wicked problem [14]. Not only are there profound differences in culture and context but we also may need fundamental change in how we think about the very nature of our science and how we work to improve implementation and exchange. An essential rst step is to identify the major issues and begin the process of creating a common language and logic [13]. This brief commentary is intended as a beginning point for that journey.

1 InSource Research Group, 6975 Marine Drive, West, Vancouver, BC, Canada V7W 2T4 2 North American Research and Analysis, Inc, 1016 11th Ave. NE, Faribault, MN 55021, USA Correspondence to: A Best allan. best@in-source.ca

Implications Practice: Practitioners embedded within a local context hold key knowledge elements and are critical participants for research translation efforts. Policy: Policies encouraging exibility and local context will be critical for the success of research translation efforts. A key issue will be allocation of adequate resources to support the translation and implementation process. Research: Suggestions are made for changes in the way researchers think about, and approach, the conduct and translation of research, including the embrace of systems thinking.

Cite this as: TBM 2011;1:361363 doi: 10.1007/s13142-011-0050-2

THREE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES Understanding the problem How we think about the problem of implementation and exchange is changing. We see three generations of thinking: (1) linear models, (2) relationship models, and (3) systems models [1, 3]. While there is no one model that could serve every situation, the eld would be well informed by the holistic, population-based, ecological approach that is systems thinking [10, 16, 17]. Key features of complex systems that need to be taken into account for translational implementation and exchange include: they are self-organizing and constantly adapting to change; they are driven by interactions between systems components and governed by feedback; and they are nonlinear and often unpredictable, with changes on one part of the system producing unexpected changes in other parts [7]. As a consequence of these features, such systems often are policy-resistant [6, 9, 15]. Two conceptual shifts are particularly important:

synthesis, and application processes in a global context.

Understanding and embracing context The problem of creating bridges between developed and low- to middle-income countries brings the issue of context into stark relief. Attempting to translate behavioral medicine ndings and evidence to a very different context or country requires one to adapt one's thinking, assumptions, and language. However, this is hardly very surprising when one considers the adaptation process that is required, even when translating programs to different settings or populations within the same country or culture. Elements which have been demonstrated to be important in this transfer process include:

& Building exibility into the process of translating

1. The increased importance of taking context seriously and guring out what it means for translational behavioral medicine and some of our most cherished concepts like randomization and delity. A number of the papers in this special issue explore this issue. 2. Acceptance of alternative methods for deepening our understanding about knowledge creation,
TBM

research ndings so as to allow for contextual differences & Translation of ndings can best be accomplished by identifying key themes, goals, or areas of activity and then applying local knowledge in the development of strategies and implementation efforts. It is the local context that will have the largest impact on success or failure of the translation initiative.
page 361 of 363

Author's personal copy

& Recognize that the "other" context is not static
but will change over time, and any translation effort must also take that change into account. & With respect to the area of scientic translation, historical context can often be as important to understand as the current context. The "right" players will often look very different when moving between contexts, so it is important to have the appropriate players and program champions involved in any translational efforts. Each of these elements is critical to keep in mind as a challenge to the concepts of generalizability, delity, and replicability that so often constrain our thinking in program adaptation and translation.

So how are we to approach the issue of generalizability and delity versus context-specic adaptation? How can we best make use of the formidable progress in developed countries using well-controlled Type I research to better meet the needs of low- to middle-income countries? We need signicant investment to ensure research and evaluation methods and tools that take context into account. Strategies like Pawsons [12, 13] realist evaluation and Pattons [11] developmental evaluation hold some promise.

STRATEGIES FOR MOVING FORWARD Let us start with a simple value stream proposition. Given strong evidence of effectiveness in other cultural and health system contexts, might a fourstep process improve our results?

Reconceptualizing science The need for more impact-oriented research, in addition to acknowledging the importance of context in implementation and exchange, has pushed the boundaries of traditional science to create a new model of science aimed at solutions [1]. This has been referred to as a shift from Modes I to II science [4]. Mode I science is investigator-driven, discoveryoriented research designed to contribute to a generalizable body of knowledge. In contrast, Mode II research is problem-based enquiry, solution-focused, and created with implementation and exchange in mind. Mode II research ndings are co-created between researchers and decision-makers, and the cocreation of knowledge allows for greater consideration of contextual factors [8, 16]. The results from Mode II research are typically context-specic, with an emphasis placed more on external validity, as opposed to internal validity. Knowledge resulting from both models of science is necessary, but currently, there is not enough Mode II research being conducted to complement the excellent efforts and production of Mode I knowledge.

& Synthesis. Critically review and succinctly sum& Problem clarication. Work with local stakeholders who can bring context to the table to blend research knowledge with context knowledge and clarify the problem(s) to be addressed. & Action research. Rely on applied, participatory research and evaluation methods to test ways of adapting the evidence base for local contexts [5]. & Implement, evaluate, and continuously learn. Develop and nurture a learning network of both local stakeholders and international experts to work in the continuous improvement cycle almost certainly needed to gradually rene policy and program strategies and achieve results. Figure 1 provides a schema of the required steps. It highlights the need to focus on system readiness before beginning the implementation and exchange process itself (ensuring necessary leadership, putting resources in place, developing capacity for end users marize the research-based knowledge

Fig 1 | Schema of the required steps

page 362 of 363

TBM

Author's personal copy

to implement). The next step is to co-create a program or logic implementation model that effectively blends knowledge about critical intervention components with the deep local wisdom about how to get things done. Finally, and only then, is it time to develop the interventions, structures, and day-today relationships necessary to achieve the desired outcomes. In reality, all of these steps often occur simultaneously. However, it can help to think about them as a process by which each step affects the potential and outcomes of the others. This process is not easy. Essentially, full implementation of a systems thinking approach calls for a very different approach to innovation development, evaluation, and transfer in the elds of behavioral medicine and public health. We need to reconsider the ways that researchers and program implementers in developed countries are supported. To illustrate, universities often must revisit issues around tenure and promotion, intellectual property, commercialization, performance incentives, and intersectoral collaborationthey are not called the ivory tower for nothing! Leaders in health service delivery also must change. The systems must embrace transformative rather than incremental change, the need to either nd new funding or to divert patient care monies to support applied research and evaluation, the critical importance of sustainable funding and the need not to rely on time-limited projects to create fundamental change, and the almost overwhelming need to invest time, money, and human resources in the process of capacity development and change. Finally, our research colleagues and funders must adapt. Action research and the system thinking proposed here calls for a shift from reductionist to holistic paradigms, new funding mechanisms, acceptance of limitations to traditional research methods, and a strategic priority on multilevel, multisectoral and international interventions and research initiatives.
CONCLUSION System thinking offers a fresh perspective on how to bridge research in higher income countries to lowand middle-income countries. While there is a wealth of tools and experience drawn from other disciplines, behavioral medicine is challenged to adapt and further develop methods and ways of

working that ensure productive global partnerships and effective methods for knowledge synthesis, exchange, and implementation. Research methods themselves need considerable further development as we learn what works for the translation process in varied complex systems.

1. Best, A., Hiatt, R. A., & Norman, C. D. (2008). Knowledge integration: Conceptualizing communications in cancer control systems. Patient Education and Counseling, 71, 319327. 2. Best, A., Terpstra, J. L., Moor, G., Riley, B., Norman, C. D., & Glasgow, R. E. (2009). Building knowledge integration systems for evidence-informed decisions. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23, 627641. 3. Best, A., & Holmes, B. J. (2010). Systems thinking, knowledge and action: Towards better models and methods. Evidence and Policy, 6(2), 145159. 4. Denis, J. L., Lehoux, P., & Champagne, F. (2005). A knowledge utilization perspective on ne-tuning dissemination and contextualizing knowledge. In L. Lemieux-Charles & F. Champagne (Eds.), Using Knowledge and Evidence in Health Care. Toronto: U of T Press. 5. Flood, R. (2010). The relationship of systems thinking to action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(4), 269284. 6. Golden, B. R., & Martin, R. L. (2004). Aligning the stars: Using systems thinking to (re)design Canadian healthcare. Healthcare Quarterly, 7, 3442. 7. Holmes, B. J., Finegood, D. T., Riley, B. L., & Best, A. (2011). Systems thinking in dissemination and implementation research. In R. Brownson, G. Colditz, & E. Proctor (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 8. Lomas, J. (2007). Decision support: a new approach to making the best healthcare management and policy choices. Healthcare Quarterly, 10, 1618. 9. Meadows, D. H. (2008). In D. Wright (Ed.), Thinking in systems: A primer. Hartland: Sustainability Institute. 10. Mitton, C., & Bate, A. (2007). O sont les chercheurs? Speaking at cross purposes or across boundaries. Healthcare Policy, 3, 3237. 11. Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: Guilford. 12. Pawson, R. (2002). Evidence-based policy: In search of a method. Evaluation, 8(2), 157181. 13. Pawson, R. (2002). Evidence-based policy: The promise of realist synthesis. Evaluation, 8(3), 340358. 14. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155169. Elsevier Scientic Publishing Company, Inc., Amsterdam. [Reprinted in N. Cross (ed.), Developments in Design Methodology, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1984, pp. 135144.], http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/ Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf. 15. Sterman, J. D. (2006). Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 505514. 16. Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31, 802821. 17. Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, A. (2009). Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: A thematic analysis of the literature. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 14(3), 156164.

TBM

page 363 of 363