↓ Skip to main content

The application of systems thinking in health: why use systems thinking?

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 889)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
57 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
488 Mendeley
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
The application of systems thinking in health: why use systems thinking?
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-12-51
Pubmed ID
Authors

David H Peters

Abstract

This paper explores the question of what systems thinking adds to the field of global health. Observing that elements of systems thinking are already common in public health research, the article discusses which of the large body of theories, methods, and tools associated with systems thinking are more useful. The paper reviews the origins of systems thinking, describing a range of the theories, methods, and tools. A common thread is the idea that the behavior of systems is governed by common principles that can be discovered and expressed. They each address problems of complexity, which is a frequent challenge in global health. The different methods and tools are suited to different types of inquiry and involve both qualitative and quantitative techniques. The paper concludes by emphasizing that explicit models used in systems thinking provide new opportunities to understand and continuously test and revise our understanding of the nature of things, including how to intervene to improve people's health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 488 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 471 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 129 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 17%
Researcher 67 14%
Other 34 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 7%
Other 93 19%
Unknown 49 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 107 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 94 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 25 5%
Engineering 19 4%
Other 108 22%
Unknown 74 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 29 June 2020.
All research outputs
#441,570
of 15,886,448 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#41
of 889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,356
of 202,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,886,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 202,630 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them