Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jun 20;16(1):94.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1087-6.

Being pragmatic about healthcare complexity: our experiences applying complexity theory and pragmatism to health services research

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Being pragmatic about healthcare complexity: our experiences applying complexity theory and pragmatism to health services research

Katrina M Long et al. BMC Med. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: The healthcare system has proved a challenging environment for innovation, especially in the area of health services management and research. This is often attributed to the complexity of the healthcare sector, characterized by intersecting biological, social and political systems spread across geographically disparate areas. To help make sense of this complexity, researchers are turning towards new methods and frameworks, including simulation modeling and complexity theory.

Discussion: Herein, we describe our experiences implementing and evaluating a health services innovation in the form of simulation modeling. We explore the strengths and limitations of complexity theory in evaluating health service interventions, using our experiences as examples. We then argue for the potential of pragmatism as an epistemic foundation for the methodological pluralism currently found in complexity research. We discuss the similarities between complexity theory and pragmatism, and close by revisiting our experiences putting pragmatic complexity theory into practice.

Conclusion: We found the commonalities between pragmatism and complexity theory to be striking. These included a sensitivity to research context, a focus on applied research, and the valuing of different forms of knowledge. We found that, in practice, a pragmatic complexity theory approach provided more flexibility to respond to the rapidly changing context of health services implementation and evaluation. However, this approach requires a redefinition of implementation success, away from pre-determined outcomes and process fidelity, to one that embraces the continual learning, evolution, and emergence that characterized our project.

Keywords: Complexity theory; Epistemology; Health services research; Implementation science; Methodology; Pragmatism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the partner Mental Health Service, with approval from 5 December 2013 until 9 January 2019.

The simulation modeling component of the project received reciprocal approval by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Monash University (CF14/1072–2,014,000,460). The evaluation component of the project received reciprocal approval by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Monash University (CF14/48–2,013,001,967).

All protocol amendments were submitted to, and approved by, the Human Research Ethics Committee of the partner Mental Health Service, using the appropriate ethics amendment forms.

Signed consent is obtained from all participants during their first in-person contact with the study. Any information gained in connection with this research project that can identify individuals will remain confidential. All information will be stored in password-protected files and folders on password-protected computers, that can only be accessed by the research staff

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Klein JH, Young T. Health care: a case of hypercomplexity? Health Systems. 2015;4(2):104–110. doi: 10.1057/hs.2014.21. - DOI
    1. Eldabi T. Implementation issues of modeling healthcare problems: misconceptions and lessons. Proceedings of the 2009 winter simulation conference (WSC). IEEE. 2009; 10.1109/WSC.2009.5429192.
    1. Tako AA. Robinson S. Is simulation in health different? J Oper Res Soc. 2015;66(4):602–614. doi: 10.1057/jors.2014.25. - DOI
    1. Kernick D. Wanted – new methodologies for health service research. Is complexity theory the answer? Fam Pract. 2006;23(3):385–390. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cml011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. The challenge of complexity in health care. Br Med J. 2001;323:625–628. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms