↓ Skip to main content

Entangled complexity: Why complex interventions are just not complicated enough

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Entangled complexity: Why complex interventions are just not complicated enough
Published in
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, January 2013
DOI 10.1258/jhsrp.2012.012036
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Cohn, Megan Clinch, Chris Bunn, Paul Stronge

Abstract

The shift of health care burden from acute to chronic conditions is strongly linked to lifestyle and behaviour. As a consequence, health services are attempting to develop strategies and interventions that can attend to the complex interactions of social and biological factors that shape both. In this paper we trace one of the most influential incarnations of this 'turn to the complex': the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Through an analysis of the key publications, and drawing on social scientific approaches to what might constitute complexity in this context, we suggest that such initiatives need to adjust their conceptualisation of 'the complex'. We argue that complexity needs to be understood as a dynamic, ecological system rather than a stable, albeit complicated, arrangement of individual elements. Crucially, in contrast to the experimental logic embedded in the MRC guidance, we question whether the Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is the most appropriate method through which to engage with complexity and establish reliable evidence of the effectiveness of complex interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 182 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 19%
Student > Master 25 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 11 6%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 29 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 38 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 12%
Psychology 21 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 39 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 14 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,915,082
of 25,464,544 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
#97
of 748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,469
of 289,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,464,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 289,422 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.