FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2086312011> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2086312011 endingPage "410" @default.
• W2086312011 startingPage "409" @default.
• W2086312011 abstract "To many colleagues working in health services research and public health policy, notions of ‘complexity’, ‘complexity science’, ‘complexity theory’ and ‘complexity thinking’ will be entirely novel concepts, far from immediately understood and in urgent need of clarification and explanation. But, as Sturmberg and Martin 1 point out in the first paper of this new Forum on Systems and Complexity in Medicine and Healthcare of the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, the basic notion of complexity per se is, in reality, hardly new. Osler, for example, is recorded as having emphasised that ‘It is much more important to know what sort of patient has a disease than to know what kind of a disease a patient has’2, illustrating the recognition that factors other than identifiable pathologies were interconnected to the patient's health and health experience and that ‘the whole is different to and more than the sum of its parts’; indeed, that a detailed consideration of the disease is inseparable from a detailed consideration of the whole person – or should be. But complexity science is not just about an individual's clinical condition and its optimal management. Whether visiting a primary care consulting room in a rural village on the one hand, or entering a tertiary referral clinic in a major university teaching hospital on the other, patients become rapidly subject to the influence of a multiplicity of processes and services as part of the healthcare system environment, few of which could be described as remotely simple in their nature. Thus, we see human individuals, inherently complex in terms of their characteristics of body, mind, spirit and social context, entering an inherently complex and multi-faceted organisational infrastructure. This is hardly major, revelatory stuff, of course. But the fact that there is little evidence to speak of which illustrates clinicians', healthcare scientists' and managers' concerns with the complexities of patient presentation and organisational functioning surely demonstrates the necessity for far more systematic study of systems and complexity in medicine and healthcare than has been conducted to date. The results of such scholarship and research have the potential to develop, separately and together, the theoretical basis of medicine, and of health services science and management, and thus to make a major contribution to the quality of patient care and to the effectiveness and efficiency of health services organisation, delivery, evaluation and development. So, if complexity science, as a relatively nascent discipline, is invested with such potential – and the JECP certainly believes it to be, hence the new Forum – then how are doctors and healthcare professionals dealing with complex clinical scenarios and organisational issues at the current time? For Sturmberg and Martin 1 the answer is clear and may be summarised as not very well. Why should this be? Clinicians, as a function of the way in which they have been taught, have an inbuilt tendency to break problems down into what are perceived to be their constituent parts in an effort to make sense of them, rather than trying to understand the complex relationships between them, so that this ‘reductionist instinct’, as it were, does not really achieve what it sets out to achieve. Indeed, Newtonian science 3, 4 is unable to answer what Sturmberg and Martin 1 refer to as the dynamical and phenomenological questions challenging medical care and health care organisations and it is these sorts of questions – integral to medicine and patient care – that benefit from the thinking and approaches of complexity science 1, 5. Indeed, reductionism and scientism have ill-served medical progress in recent years 6-16 and so if reductionist approaches in medicine are the cause of the current crisis in patient care and health services organisation, it is incontrovertibly the case that we do not need more of the same 17-23. Has the time not come, then, to move away from models determined to impose crudely simplistic thinking and decision-making processes upon complex clinical situations in attempts to manufacture simple answers to complex problems and to consider the value and benefits of newer, more rational approaches? 1, 5, 16. Complexity theory, science and thinking will, as they develop and are properly utilised, assist clinicians and healthcare scientists in dealing with some of their most intractable difficulties in day-to-day practice, difficulties that never have been, and cannot be, by their nature, understood and dealt with through simplistic linear thinking alone, but rather through a thinking based on a developed understanding of the relevance of non-linear, complex and multidimensional processes to patient care and healthcare systems organisation. In the first two papers of this new Forum on Systems and Complexity in Medicine and Healthcare, which are usefully read together, Sturmberg and Martin 1, 5 reflect on all of the above in considerable depth and provide an admirable account of the inescapable imperative to progress our understanding of complexity in medicine and healthcare, people and systems. Their intention is that the new Forum will contribute significantly to a reinvigoration of our traditional connections with the ‘complex, messy world of healthcare and disease as experienced by patients’ and to strengthen the interconnected nature of thinking, knowing and acting in the field of health and healthcare. In this way, the value of systems and complexity science can be seen for what it is – an extension to understanding, rather than the presentation of a panacea (as was the rhetorical and philosophical error of EBM), which can help address the current intellectual, therapeutic, organisational and educational crisis within modern medicine. The emerging research agenda considered by the authors is at once challenging, but also exciting and it's potential to develop the effectiveness of medical practice in 2009 and beyond, appears clear. The inclusion of a further five articles 24-28 within the current issue constitutes, then, the first Forum, with subsequent fora presenting a range of scholarly papers focussed on mathematical dynamics and clustering, philosophical analysis, narrative research, economic evaluation, health policy analysis and health professionals' education. The JECP looks forward to the publication of these works in its pages and congratulates Drs. Martin and Sturmberg on their vision and commitment as joint editors of this important new initiative." @default.
• W2086312011 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2086312011 creator A5039568679 @default.
• W2086312011 date "2009-05-26" @default.
• W2086312011 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2086312011 title "Complexity in medicine and healthcare: people and systems, theory and practice" @default.
• W2086312011 cites W1581972098 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W1582221066 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W1727435525 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W1780446795 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W1812433446 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W1920832469 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W1941968844 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W1963534537 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W1985615467 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W1993793195 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2012801920 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2030410865 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2040885684 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2046772559 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2058830971 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2115793908 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2119667246 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2126026066 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2135973066 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2138876001 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2143923508 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2144747684 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2147106398 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2151186028 @default.
• W2086312011 cites W2155694001 @default.
• W2086312011 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01204.x" @default.
• W2086312011 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19522904" @default.
• W2086312011 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2086312011 type Work @default.
• W2086312011 sameAs 2086312011 @default.
• W2086312011 citedByCount "43" @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112012 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112013 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112014 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112015 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112016 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112017 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112018 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112019 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112020 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112021 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112022 @default.
• W2086312011 countsByYear W20863120112023 @default.
• W2086312011 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2086312011 hasAuthorship W2086312011A5039568679 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConcept C2988170871 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConceptScore W2086312011C15744967 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConceptScore W2086312011C159110408 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConceptScore W2086312011C160735492 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConceptScore W2086312011C17744445 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConceptScore W2086312011C199539241 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConceptScore W2086312011C2988170871 @default.
• W2086312011 hasConceptScore W2086312011C71924100 @default.
• W2086312011 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2086312011 hasLocation W20863120111 @default.
• W2086312011 hasLocation W20863120112 @default.
• W2086312011 hasOpenAccess W2086312011 @default.
• W2086312011 hasPrimaryLocation W20863120111 @default.
• W2086312011 hasRelatedWork W1159694101 @default.
• W2086312011 hasRelatedWork W1508682788 @default.
• W2086312011 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2086312011 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2086312011 hasRelatedWork W2932738180 @default.
• W2086312011 hasRelatedWork W3024114128 @default.
• W2086312011 hasRelatedWork W3214957520 @default.
• W2086312011 hasRelatedWork W4206465554 @default.
• W2086312011 hasRelatedWork W4322577590 @default.
• W2086312011 hasRelatedWork W4380151695 @default.
• W2086312011 hasVolume "15" @default.
• W2086312011 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2086312011 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2086312011 magId "2086312011" @default.
• W2086312011 workType "article" @default.