'It just doesn't seem to fit'. Environmental illness, corporeal chaos and the body as a complex system

The radical and requisite openness of viable systems: Implications for healthcare strategy and practice

This paper addresses an ontological question about the nature of health and challenges some underpinning assumptions in western healthcare. In its analysis, health in its various statuses, is framed as a naturally occurring complex adaptive system made up of dynamically interacting subsystems that include the physiological, psychological, and social realms. Furthermore, openness in complex systems such as health, is necessary for the exchange of energy, information, and resources. Yet, within healthcare much effort is invested in constraining systems' behaviours, whether they be systems of knowledge, health, healthcare, and more. This paper draws on the complexity sciences and Levinasian philosophy to explicate the essential role of system openness in individual, population, and systemic viability. It highlights holism to be "not whole-ism", and system openness to be, not just a reality, but a critical feature of viability. Hence requisite openness is advocated as essential to efficacious and ethical healthcare practice and strategy, and vital for health.

From individual coping strategies to illness codification: the reflection of gender in social science research on multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS)

INTRODUCTION

Emerging fields such as environmental health have been challenged, in recent years, to answer the growing methodological calls for a finer integration of sex and gender in health-related research and policy-making.

METHODS

Through a descriptive examination of 25 peer-reviewed social science papers published between 1996 and 2011, we explore, by examining methodological designs and theoretical standpoints, how the social sciences have integrated gender sensitivity in empirical work on Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS). MCS is a "diagnosis" associated with sensitivities to chronic and low-dose chemical exposures, which remains contested in both the medical and institutional arenas, and is reported to disproportionately affect women.

RESULTS

We highlighted important differences between papers that did integrate a gender lens and those that did not. These included characteristics of the authorship, purposes, theoretical frameworks and methodological designs of the studies. Reviewed papers that integrated gender tended to focus on the gender roles and identity of women suffering from MCS, emphasizing personal strategies of adaptation. More generally, terminological confusions in the use of sex and gender language and concepts, such as a conflation of women and gender, were observed. Although some men were included in most of the study samples reviewed, specific data relating to men was undereported in results and only one paper discussed issues specifically experienced by men suffering from MCS. Papers that overlooked gender dimensions generally addressed more systemic social issues such as the dynamics of expertise and the medical codification of MCS, from more consistently outlined theoretical frameworks. Results highlight the place for a critical, systematic and reflexive problematization of gender and for the development of methodological and theoretical tools on how to integrate gender in research designs when looking at both micro and macro social dimensions of environmental health conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper contributes to a discussion on the methodological and policy implications of taking sex and gender into account appropriately in order to contribute to better equity in health, especially where the critical social contexts of definition and medico-legal recognition play a major role such as in the case of MCS.

Leadership and transitions: maintaining the science in complexity and complex systems

It is the 'moral compass', however subtle, that underpins leadership. Leadership, meaning showing the way, demands as much conviction as gentile diplomacy in the discourse with supporters and detractors. In particular, leadership defends the goal by safeguarding its principles from its detractors. The authors writing in the Forum on Complexity in Medicine and Healthcare since its inception are leaders in an intellectual transition to complex systems thinking in medicine and health.

Complexity theory as an approach to explanation in healthcare: a critical discussion

The reception of complexity theory in health care is characterised by a tendency to reify the idea of a complex system, which is basically an abstraction. This paper argues for three principal theses: first, to invoke complexity, to refer to complex systems, is to proffer a form of explanation; second, in the context of the social sciences, the form of explanation that complexity represents belongs to a family of explanations which the recent theoretical literature associates with social mechanisms; and, third, complexity explanations refer to a specific type of social mechanism, whose features differentiate it from the other members of the family. The most significant of these features is the jettisoning of the default link between order and design, which is precisely the principle omitted by an influential series of papers in the BMJ. Having defended these claims, the paper presents a brief case study illustrating the analysis.

Health promotion as a systems science and practice

RATIONALE

Health promotion is where clinical practice and prevention science intersect to address complex or 'wicked' problems that have multiple sources and require a broad perspective to address. This means focusing on the social determinants of health and the complex individual, community and environmental interactions that influence health and wellbeing. Health promotion research and practice recognizes that social change is not linear and involves multiple communities of interest working together in a coordinated manner in order to address health problems. An approach that acknowledges this non-linear system of interaction in its data gathering, strategic planning, and program implementation is necessary to addressing this complexity in practice.

METHODS

Concepts such as chaos theory, self-organization, social emergence can inform how health promotion is practiced at multiple levels. Evaluation approaches such as social network analysis, system dynamics modeling combined with social organizing strategies like communities of practice and unconferences provide opportunities to leverage social capital effectively to promote health in complex environments with diverse populations.

CONCLUSION

Health promotion's focus on the multi-layered, complex interactions that create or limit health and wellbeing require knowledge and action that match this complexity. Approaches to engagement and evaluation that are based on systems theories and methodologies provide the means of addressing this complexity, while framing health promotion as a systems science and practice.