↓ Skip to main content

Enhancing implementation science by applying best principles of systems science

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2016
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
34 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
Title
Enhancing implementation science by applying best principles of systems science
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0146-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary E. Northridge, Sara S. Metcalf

Abstract

Implementation science holds promise for better ensuring that research is translated into evidence-based policy and practice, but interventions often fail or even worsen the problems they are intended to solve due to a lack of understanding of real world structures and dynamic complexity. While systems science alone cannot possibly solve the major challenges in public health, systems-based approaches may contribute to changing the language and methods for conceptualising and acting within complex systems. The overarching goal of this paper is to improve the modelling used in dissemination and implementation research by applying best principles of systems science. Best principles, as distinct from the more customary term 'best practices', are used to underscore the need to extract the core issues from the context in which they are embedded in order to better ensure that they are transferable across settings. Toward meaningfully grappling with the complex and challenging problems faced in adopting and integrating evidence-based health interventions and changing practice patterns within specific settings, we propose and illustrate four best principles derived from our systems science experience: (1) model the problem, not the system; (2) pay attention to what is important, not just what is quantifiable; (3) leverage the utility of models as boundary objects; and (4) adopt a portfolio approach to model building. To improve our mental models of the real world, system scientists have created methodologies such as system dynamics, agent-based modelling, geographic information science and social network simulation. To understand dynamic complexity, we need the ability to simulate. Otherwise, our understanding will be limited. The practice of dynamic systems modelling, as discussed herein, is the art and science of linking system structure to behaviour for the purpose of changing structure to improve behaviour. A useful computer model creates a knowledge repository and a virtual library for internally consistent exploration of alternative assumptions. Among the benefits of systems modelling are iterative practice, participatory potential and possibility thinking. We trust that the best principles proposed here will resonate with implementation scientists; applying them to the modelling process may abet the translation of research into effective policy and practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 246 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 20%
Researcher 44 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 10%
Student > Master 20 8%
Other 14 6%
Other 45 18%
Unknown 54 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 41 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 10%
Psychology 14 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 4%
Other 47 19%
Unknown 74 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 05 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,913,518
of 25,656,290 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#225
of 1,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,869
of 328,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,656,290 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 1,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 328,389 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.