Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T11:30:27.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systems thinking in health technology assessment: a scoping review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2021

Marina Richardson Open the ORCID record for Marina Richardson [Opens in a new window] ,
Lauren C. Ramsay ,
Joanna M. Bielecki ,
Whitney Berta  and
Beate Sander
Marina Richardson*
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5T 3M6 Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Eaton Building, 10th Floor, Room 247, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5G 2C4
Lauren C. Ramsay
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5T 3M6 Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Eaton Building, 10th Floor, Room 247, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5G 2C4
Joanna M. Bielecki
Affiliation:
Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Eaton Building, 10th Floor, Room 247, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5G 2C4
Whitney Berta
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5T 3M6
Beate Sander
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5T 3M6 Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Eaton Building, 10th Floor, Room 247, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5G 2C4 ICES, 155 College Street, Suite 424, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5T 3M6 Public Health Ontario, 480 University Ave #300, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5G 1V2
*
Author for correspondence: Marina Richardson, E-mail: marina.richardson@mail.utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Our objective was to assess how, and to what extent, a systems-level perspective is considered in decision-making processes for health interventions by illustrating how studies define the boundaries of the system in their analyses and by defining the decision-making context in which a systems-level perspective is undertaken.

Method

We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and EconLit were searched and key search concepts included decision making, system, and integration. Studies were classified according to an interpretation of the “system” of analysis used in each study based on a four-level model of the health system (patient, care team, organization, and/or policy environment) and using categories (based on intervention type and system impacts considered) to describe the decision-making context.

Results

A total of 2,664 articles were identified and 29 were included for analysis. Most studies (16/29; 55%) considered multiple levels of the health system (i.e., patient, care team, organization, environment) in their analysis and assessed multiple classes of interventions versus a single class of intervention (e.g., pharmaceuticals, screening programs). Approximately half (15/29; 52%) of the studies assessed the influence of policy options on the system as a whole, and the other half assessed the impact of interventions on other phases of the disease pathway or life trajectory (14/29; 48%).

Conclusions

We found that systems thinking is not common in areas where health technology assessments (HTAs) are typically conducted. Against this background, our study demonstrates the need for future conceptualizations and interpretations of systems thinking in HTA.

Keywords

Technology assessmentHealth systemsIntersectoral collaborationScoping review
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , 2021 , e71
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Kristensen, FB, Husereau, D, Huic, M, Drummond, M, Berger, ML, Bond, K, et al. Identifying the need for good practices in health technology assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA council working group report on good practices in HTA. Value Health. 2019;22:13–20. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stojanovic, J, Wübbeler, M, Geis, S, Reviriego, E, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, I, Lenoir-Wijnkoop, I. Evaluating public health interventions: A neglected area in health technology assessment. Front Public Health. 2020;8:106. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Rourke, B, Oortwijn, W, Schuller, T. The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:187–90. doi:10.1017/S0266462320000215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopes, E, Street, J, Carter, D, Merlin, T, Stafinski, T. Understanding Canadian health technology assessment through a systems lens. Health Policy. 2020;124:952–8. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.06.014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Savigny, D, Taghreed, A. Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. Geneva, Switzerland: Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO; 2009.Google Scholar
Trochim, WM, Cabrera, DA, Milstein, B, Gallagher, RS, Leischow, SJ. Practical challenges of systems thinking and modeling in public health. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:538–46. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, Culyer, A. Mark versus Luke? Appropriate methods for the evaluation of public health interventions. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Working Papers; 2007.Google Scholar
Marshall, DA, Burgos-Liz, L, Ijzerman, MJ, Osgood, ND, Padula, WV, Higashi, MK, et al. Applying dynamic simulation modeling methods in health care delivery research—The SIMULATE checklist: Report of the ISPOR simulation modeling emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2015;18:5–16. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hossain, NU, Dayarathna, VL, Nagahi, M, Jaradat, R. Systems thinking: A review and bibliometric analysis. Systems. 2020;8. doi:10.3390/systems8030023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atun, R. Health systems, systems thinking and innovation. Health Policy Plan. 2012;27:iv4–iv8. doi:10.1093/heapol/czs088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapointe-Shaw, L, Fischer, HD, Newman, A, John-Baptiste, A, Anderson, GM, Rochon, PA, et al. Potential savings of harmonising hospital and community formularies for chronic disease medications initiated in hospital. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e39737. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, BK, Yang, YT, Gajadhar, R. Early evidence from South Carolina's Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligible financial alignment initiative: An observational study to understand who enrolled, and whether the program improved health? BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:913. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3721-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattessich, PW, Rausch, EJ. Cross-sector collaboration to improve community health: A view of the current landscape. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:1968–74. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrison, L, Towse, A. The drug budget silo mentality in Europe: An overview. Value Health. 2003;6:S1–9. doi:10.1046/J.1524-4733.6.S1.1.X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, J, Hellsten, E. Integrated funding: Connecting the silos for the healthcare we need. Toronto, Ontario: C.D. Howe Institute; 2017.Google Scholar
Meneses, R, Caseiro, J. Silos mentality in healthcare services. 11th Annual Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business. EuroMed Press; 2018.Google Scholar
The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: 2015 edition/supplement. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2015.Google Scholar
Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, O'Brien, KK, Colquhoun, H, Levac, D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. doi:10.7326/M18-0850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, M, Boruff, JT, Gore, GC. Scoping reviews: Establishing the role of the librarian. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104:346–54. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Bank Country and Lending Groups. The World Bank. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.Google Scholar
Reid, P, Compton, W, Grossman, J, Fanjiang, G. Building a better delivery system: A new engineering/health care partnership. 2005. doi:10.17226/11378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferlie, EB, Shortell, SM. Improving the quality of health care in the United Kingdom and the United States: A framework for change. Milbank Q. 2001;79:281–315. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenheck, R, Leslie, D, Sint, K, Lin, H, Robinson, DG, Schooler, NR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of comprehensive, integrated care for first episode psychosis in the NIMH RAISE early treatment program. Schizophr Bull. 2016;42:896–906. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbv224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, TC. Measuring the effects of reducing subsidies for private insurance on public expenditure for health care. J Health Econ. 2014;33:159–79. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.11.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santos, A, Gurling, J, Dvorak, MF, Noonan, VK, Fehlings, MG, Burns, AS, et al. Modeling the patient journey from injury to community reintegration for persons with acute traumatic spinal cord injury in a Canadian centre. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e72552. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidwani, R, Goetz, MB, Kominski, G, Asch, S, Mattocks, K, Samet, JH, et al. A budget impact analysis of rapid human immunodeficiency virus screening in veterans administration emergency departments. J Emerg Med. 2012;42:719–26. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.11.038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooy, JM, Gunning-Schepers, LJ. Computer-assisted health impact assessment for intersectoral health policy. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2001;57:169–77. doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(00)00134-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forder, J, Gousia, K, Saloniki, EC. The impact of long-term care on primary care doctor consultations for people over 75 years. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20:375–87. doi:10.1007/s10198-018-0999-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, S, Triantis, KP, Zhao, L, Wang, Y. Capturing multi-stage fuzzy uncertainties in hybrid system dynamics and agent-based models for enhancing policy implementation in health systems research. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0194687. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steele Gray, C, Wodchis, WP, Baker, GR, Carswell, P, Kenealy, T, McKillop, A, et al. Mapping for conceptual clarity: Exploring implementation of integrated community-based primary health care from a whole systems perspective. Int J Integr Care. 2018;18:14. doi:10.5334/ijic.3082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loo, RK, Shapiro, C, Tamaddon, K, Chien, G, Rhee, E, Jacobsen, SJ. The continuum of prostate cancer care: An integrated population based model of health care delivery. Urol Pract. 2015;2:78–84. doi:10.1016/j.urpr.2014.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maniatopoulos, G, Haining, S, Allen, J, Wilkes, S. Negotiating commissioning pathways for the successful implementation of innovative health technology in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:648. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4477-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Embuldeniya, G, Kirst, M, Walker, K, Wodchis, WP. The generation of integration: The early experience of implementing bundled care in Ontario, Canada. Milbank Q. 2018;96:782–813. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willmott, M, Womack, J, Hollingworth, W, Campbell, R. Making the case for investment in public health: Experiences of directors of public health in English local government. J Public Health (Oxford, England). 2016;38:237–42. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGuire, F, Vijayasingham, L, Vassall, A, Small, R, Webb, D, Guthrie, T, et al. Financing intersectoral action for health: A systematic review of co-financing models. Glob Health. 2019;15:86. doi:10.1186/s12992-019-0513-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, X. Application of discrete event simulation in health care: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:687. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3456-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaranuwatchai, W, Bayoumi, AM, Renahy, E, Cheff, R, O'Campo, P. Using decision methods to examine the potential impact of intersectoral action programs. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11:506. doi:10.1186/s13104-018-3609-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dulai, PS, Singh, S, Ohno-Machado, L, Sandborn, WJ. Population health management for inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:37–45. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.09.052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, MC, Thyagarajan, R, Wilson, AJ, Sekeres, MA. Strategies for success in creating an effective multihospital health-system pharmacy and therapeutics committee. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2018;75:451–5. doi:10.2146/ajhp170531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tannenbaum, C, Farrell, B, Shaw, J, Morgan, S, Trimble, J, Currie, J, et al. An ecological approach to reducing potentially inappropriate medication use: Canadian deprescribing network. Can J Aging. 2017;36:97–107. doi:10.1017/S0714980816000702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munar, W, Hovmand, PS, Fleming, C, Darmstadt, GL. Scaling-up impact in perinatology through systems science: Bridging the collaboration and translational divides in cross-disciplinary research and public policy. Semin Perinatol. 2015;39:416–23. doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2015.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skouteris, H, Huang, T, Millar, L, Kuhlberg, J, Dodd, J, Callaway, L, et al. A systems approach to reducing maternal obesity: The health in preconception, pregnancy and postbirth (HIPPP) collaborative. Aust N Z J Obst Gynaecol. 2015;55:397–400. doi:10.1111/ajo.12341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, TL, Solomon, BS. Translating life course theory to clinical practice to address health disparities. Matern Child Health J. 2014;18:389–95. doi:10.1007/s10995-013-1279-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luke, DA, Stamatakis, KA. Systems science methods in public health: Dynamics, networks, and agents. Annu Rev Publ Health. 2012;33:357–76. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abrams, DB, Graham, AL, Levy, DT, Mabry, PL, Orleans, CT. Boosting population quits through evidence-based cessation treatment and policy. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38:S351–63. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.12.011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, A, Stokols, D, Green, LW, Leischow, S, Holmes, B, Buchholz, K. An integrative framework for community partnering to translate theory into effective health promotion strategy. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18:168–76. doi:10.4278/0890-1171-18.2.168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boult, C, Pacala, JT. Integrating healthcare for older populations. Am J Manag Care. 1999;5:45–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Gallacher, J, de Reydet de Vulpillieres, F, Amzal, B, Angehrn, Z, Bexelius, C, Bintener, C, et al. Challenges for optimizing real-world evidence in Alzheimer's disease: The ROADMAP project. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;67:495–501. doi:10.3233/JAD-180370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, SB, Leeman, J, Hassmiller Lich, K, Tangka, FKL, Davis, MM, Richardson, LC. Data-powered participatory decision making: Leveraging systems thinking and simulation to guide selection and implementation of evidence-based colorectal cancer screening interventions. Cancer J (United States). 2018;24:132–9. doi:10.1097/PPO.0000000000000317.Google ScholarPubMed
Freebairn, L, Rychetnik, L, Atkinson, JA, Kelly, P, McDonnell, G, Roberts, N, et al. Knowledge mobilisation for policy development: Implementing systems approaches through participatory dynamic simulation modelling. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:83. doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0245-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boudreaux, AM, Vetter, TR. A primer on population health management and Its perioperative application. Anesth Analg. 2016;123:63–70. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000001357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glassman, A, Giedion, U, Sakuma, Y, Smith, PC. Defining a health benefits package: What are the necessary processes? Health Syst Reform. 2016;2:39–50. doi:10.1080/23288604.2016.1124171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, D, Vanderby, S, Enns, E, Frank, C, Wasylak, T, Mosher, DP, et al. PMS89 simulation modeling with system dynamics (SD) using real-world observational data to plan osteoarthritis care delivery in Alberta. Value Health. 2012;15:A50. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aggarwal, M, Williams, AP. Tinkering at the margins: Evaluating the pace and direction of primary care reform in Ontario, Canada. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20:128. doi:10.1186/s12875-019-1014-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Richardson et al. supplementary material

Richardson et al. supplementary material

Download Richardson et al. supplementary material(File)
File 64.8 KB