4.2 Article

From complex social interventions to interventions in complex social systems: Future directions and unresolved questions for intervention development and evaluation

期刊

EVALUATION
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 23-45

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1356389018803219

关键词

complex interventions; complex systems; evaluation; methodology; population health; social intervention

资金

  1. Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Public Health Research Centre of Excellence
  2. British Heart Foundation [MR/KO232331/1]
  3. Cancer Research UK [MR/KO232331/1]
  4. Economic and Social Research Council [MR/KO232331/1]
  5. Medical Research Council [MR/KO232331/1]
  6. Welsh Government [MR/KO232331/1]
  7. Wellcome Trust, under UKCRC [MR/KO232331/1]
  8. MRC [MR/K023233/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Complex systems approaches to social intervention research are increasingly advocated. However, there have been few attempts to consider how models of intervention science, such as the UK's Medical Research Council complex interventions framework, might be reframed through a complex systems lens. This article identifies some key areas in which this framework might be reconceptualized, and a number of priority areas where further development is needed if alignment with a systems perspective is to be achieved. We argue that a complex systems perspective broadens the parameters of 'relevant' evidence and theory for intervention development, before discussing challenges in defining feasibility in dynamic terms. We argue that whole systems evaluations may be neither attainable, nor necessary; acknowledgment of complexity does not mean that evaluations must be complex, or investigate all facets of complexity. However, a systems lens may add value to evaluation design through guiding identification of key uncertainties, and informing decisions such as timings of follow-up assessments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据