We Need to Talk About Complexity in Health Research: Findings From a Focused Ethnography

Defining focused ethnography: Disciplinary boundary-work and the imagined divisions between 'focused' and 'traditional' ethnography in health research - A critical review

This article offers the first critical review of focused ethnography, an increasingly popular research method across health disciplines. Focused ethnographers, we argue, exemplify the practice of methodological boundary work, defining their method in contrast to the 'traditional' ethnographic approach of anthropology and sociology. To examine this boundary work, we collected two samples of health research articles published over the last decade and compared how focused ethnographers and medical anthropologists described, justified, and practised ethnography. We found that the core characteristics most often asserted to differentiate focused ethnography from conventional ethnography were: a more limited study timeframe and scope; a limited subpopulation sample; more concentrated research questions; the inclusion of insider researchers; and more orientation towards applied results. We show, however, that these are imagined binaries that fail to map onto actual differences of practice in the two samples and which obscure many similarities between them. By contrast, we identified four alternative differences between the two methods of ethnography. These centre on understandings of 'research time'; the very meaning of ethnography; the relationship of researchers to 'data'; and the presumed best method of social intervention. We therefore define focused ethnography as a versatile method of ethnography that attends to specific epistemological expectations within the health sciences regarding valid proof and empirical description, the boundaries of research, the nature of research relationships, and the duty to improve biomedicine. Ultimately, our study highlights that methodological boundary-work matters, because assumed differences and unexpressed misunderstandings can prevent productive dialogue and fruitful collaboration between disciplines to address pressing health problems.

Human Factors in Leveraging Systems Science to Shape Public Policy for Obesity: A Usability Study

Background: despite a broad consensus on their importance, applications of systems thinking in policymaking and practice have been limited. This is partly caused by the longstanding practice of developing systems maps and software in the intention of supporting policymakers, but without knowing their needs and practices. Objective: we aim to ensure the effective use of a systems mapping software by policymakers seeking to understand and manage the complex system around obesity, physical, and mental well-being. Methods: we performed a usability study with eight policymakers in British Columbia based on a software tool (ActionableSystems) that supports interactions with a map of obesity. Our tasks examine different aspects of systems thinking (e.g., unintended consequences, loops) at several levels of mastery and cover common policymaking needs (identification, evaluation, understanding). Video recordings provided quantitative usability metrics (correctness, time to completion) individually and for the group, while pre- and post-usability interviews yielded qualitative data for thematic analysis. Results: users knew the many different factors that contribute to mental and physical well-being in obesity; however, most were only familiar with lower-level systems thinking concepts (e.g., interconnectedness) rather than higher-level ones (e.g., feedback loops). Most struggles happened at the lowest level of the mastery taxonomy, and predominantly on network representation. Although participants completed tasks on loops and multiple pathways mostly correctly, this was at the detriment of spending significant time on these aspects. Results did not depend on the participant, as their experiences with the software were similar. The thematic analysis revealed that policymakers did not have a typical workflow and did not use any special software or tools in their policy work; hence, the integration of a new tool would heavily depend on individual practices. Conclusions: there is an important discrepancy between what constitutes systems thinking to policymakers and what parts of systems thinking are supported by software. Tools may be more successfully integrated when they include tutorials (e.g., case studies), facilitate access to evidence, and can be linked to a policymaker’s portfolio.

Evolution and expansion of the One Health approach to promote sustainable and resilient health and well-being: A call to action

One Health is a transdisciplinary approach used to address complex concerns related to human, animal, plant, and ecosystem health. One Health frameworks and operational tools are available to support countries and communities, particularly for the prevention and control of zoonotic diseases and antimicrobial resistance and the protection of food safety. However, One Health has yet to be implemented in a manner that fully considers the complexities and interconnectedness of the diverse influences that have impacts at a larger system level. This lack of consideration can undermine the sustainability of any positive outcomes. To ensure the One Health approach can function effectively within the new global context of converging and escalating health, social, economic, and ecological crises, it must evolve and expand in three overlapping dimensions: (1) Scope: the partners, knowledge, and knowledge systems included, (2) Approach: the techniques, methodologies, and scholarship considered, and (3) Worldview inclusivity: the interweaving of other worldviews together with the mainstream scientific worldview that currently predominates. Diverse partners and knowledge from outside the mainstream health and scientific sectors, including Indigenous peoples and representatives of local communities, and traditionally generated knowledge, must be included. These systems of knowledge can then be braided together with mainstream science to comprise a holistic framework for decision-making. Scholarship and methodologies being applied in other fields and contexts to solve complex challenges and manage uncertainty, such as collaborative governance, social-ecologic systems theory, and complexity science, must be recognized and incorporated. The spectrum of considered worldviews must also expand to authentically integrate the expanded scope and approach into action and sustainable impact. By increasing community and social engagement and by recognizing and entwining different worldviews, the plurality of disciplines, and traditional and scientific ways of knowing to address community concerns in the contexts in which they exist, we can ensure that One Health remains effective and true to its paradigm in our rapidly changing and complex world.

Critically engaging vulnerability: Rethinking oral health with vulnerabilized populations

This paper is the third in a series of narrative reviews challenging core concepts in oral health research and practice. Our series started with a framework for Inclusion Oral Health. Our second review explored one component of this framework, looking at how intersectionality adds important complexity to oral public health. This current manuscript drills into a second component of Inclusion Oral Health, exploring how labels can lead to 'othering' thereby misrepresenting populations and (re)producing harms. Specifically, we address a common oral public health label: vulnerable populations. This term is commonly used descriptively: an adjective (vulnerable) is used to modify a noun (population). What this descriptor conceals is the 'how,' 'why,' and 'therefore' that leads to and from vulnerability: How and why is a population made vulnerable; to what are they vulnerable; what makes them 'at risk,' and to what are they 'at risk'? In concealing these questions, we argue our conventional approach unwittingly does harm. Vulnerability is a term that implies a population has inherent characteristics that make them vulnerable; further, it casts populations as discrete, homogenous entities, thereby misrepresenting the complexities that people live. In so doing, this label can eclipse the strengths, agency and power of individuals and populations to care for themselves and each other. Regarding oral public health, the convention of vulnerability averts our research gaze away from social processes that produce vulnerability to instead focus on the downstream product, the vulnerable population. This paper theorizes vulnerability for oral public health, critically engaging its production and reproduction. Drawing from critical public health literature and disability studies, we advance a critique of vulnerability to make explicit hidden assumptions and their harmful outcomes. We propose solutions for research and practice, including co-engagement and co-production with peoples who have been vulnerabilized. In so doing, this paper moves forward the potential for oral public health to advance research and practice that engages complexity in our work with vulnerabilized populations.

Implementation of Web-Based Psychosocial Interventions for Adults With Acquired Brain Injury and Their Caregivers: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

More than 135 million people worldwide live with acquired brain injury (ABI) and its many psychosocial sequelae. This growing global burden necessitates scalable rehabilitation services. Despite demonstrated potential to increase the accessibility and scalability of psychosocial supports, digital health interventions are challenging to implement and sustain. The Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework can offer developers and researchers a comprehensive overview of considerations to implement, scale, and sustain digital health interventions.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review identified published, peer-reviewed primary evidence of implementation outcomes, strategies, and factors for web-based psychosocial interventions targeting either adults with ABI or their formal or informal caregivers; evaluated and summarized this evidence; synthesized qualitative and quantitative implementation data according to the NASSS framework; and provided recommendations for future implementation. Results were compared with 3 hypotheses which state that complexity (dynamic, unpredictable, and poorly characterized factors) in most or all NASSS domains increases likelihood of implementation failure; success is achievable, but difficult with many complicated domains (containing multiple interacting factors); and simplicity (straightforward, predictable, and few factors) in most or all domains increases the likelihood of success.

METHODS

From a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, speechBITE, and neuroBITE, we reviewed primary implementation evidence from January 2008 to June 2020. For web-based psychosocial interventions delivered via standard desktop computer, mobile phone, tablet, television, and virtual reality devices to adults with ABI or their formal or informal caregivers, we extracted intervention characteristics, stakeholder involvement, implementation scope and outcomes, study design and quality, and implementation data. Implementation data were both narratively synthesized and descriptively quantified across all 7 domains (condition, technology, value proposition, adopters, organization, wider system, and their interaction over time) and all subdomains of the NASSS framework. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the 2018 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

We identified 60 peer-reviewed studies from 12 countries, including 5723 adults with ABI, 1920 carers, and 50 health care staff. The findings aligned with all 3 hypotheses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although studies were of low methodological quality and insufficient number to statistically test relationships, the results appeared consistent with recommendations to reduce complexity as much as possible to facilitate implementation. Although studies excluded individuals with a range of comorbidities and sociocultural challenges, such simplification of NASSS domain 1 may have been necessary to advance intervention value propositions (domain 3). However, to create equitable digital health solutions that can be successfully implemented in real-world settings, it is recommended that developers involve people with ABI, their close others, and health care staff in addressing complexities in domains 2 to 7 from the earliest intervention design stages.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020186387; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020186387.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1177/20552076211035988.

Fluctuating power: an exploration of refugee health nursing within the resettlement context in Victoria, Australia

Background

The Refugee Health Program (RHP) is a nurse-led community initiative, introduced in 2005 with the aim of responding to complex health issues of refugees arriving in Victoria, Australia. Little is known about refugee health nursing in the resettlement context and the impact of dedicated refugee healthcare.

Aim

To explore the experiences and perspectives of Refugee Health Nurses (RHNs), Refugee Health Managers (managers) and refugees, gaining insight into professional relationships and the complexities of offering a specialised refugee health service.

Method

A focused ethnographic approach incorporated semi-structured interviews with five RHNs, two managers and eight refugees, two focus groups with refugees and participant observation within the RHP during April 2017 to December 2017. Data collection was undertaken across two sites and interviews, focus groups and observations were transcribed and thematically analysed. Social constructionism asserts that the focus of enquiry should be on interaction, group processes and social practices. Emphasis is placed upon relationships between RHNs, managers and refugees, with knowledge viewed as relational and interactional.

Results

Professional relationships between RHNs and refugees are complex, with power oscillating between them. Contrary to discourses of ‘vulnerability’ of refugees, both RHNs and refugees demonstrated power in their relationships with each other. Nurses also suggested that these relationships were stressful and could lead to burnout. Key themes were developed: (1) nursing autonomy and gatekeeping; (2) vicarious trauma and burnout; and (3) refugee negotiation of care.

Conclusions

The balance of power is central to therapeutic relationships. In relationships between RHNs and refugees, power fluctuates as RHNs are exposed to vicarious trauma and symptoms of burnout, while refugees exercise agency by recognising benefits to specialised care. In developing effective therapeutic relationships between RHNs and refugees, attention should be paid to how care is delivered to protect RHNs from burnout while ensuring that refugees receive appropriate care.

Understanding global health policy engagements with qualitative research: Qualitative evidence syntheses and the OptimizeMNH guidelines

Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence-or 'qualitative evidence syntheses' (QES)-have recently become an important form of knowledge production within the broader projects of 'evidence-based medicine' (EBM) and 'evidence-informed policymaking' in global health. Proponents of QES argue that these reviews offer a way to promote 'health systems thinking' and build a better understanding of local process and context in global health policy- and decision-making. EBM's detailed technical procedures for evidence synthesis, however, do not necessarily fit well with conventional qualitative research paradigms and there are concerns that subjecting qualitative research to EBM's logics and practices might fatally compromise both its epistemological integrity and political impact. This article addresses these concerns via a reflective case study of the use of qualitative evidence in the World Health Organization's (WHO) OptimizeMNH guidelines for task shifting in maternal and newborn health programs. When I first joined the team developing the evidence base for these health systems-oriented guidelines, I wondered whether the inclusion of qualitative research would result in a broadening of the forms of reason, experience and judgment that informed global health policy, or instead, be another disheartening example of how modern bureaucratic systems coopt, standardize, and complexity-reduce the alternative logics they encounter. While the integration of qualitative evidence did come at some cost to the depth and critical insights of the evidence we were reviewing, there were also important ways in which the technical procedures of evidence-based medicine were open to adaptation and transformation. The formal inclusion of qualitative evidence syntheses in these global guidelines did not represent-or produce-a dramatic about-turn in global health policy's hegemonic discourses and practices. It did reveal, however, that powerful systems of health governance like the WHO and evidence-based medicine are not inevitably closed, but in fact open to change, in often unpredictable ways.

"Kicking and Screaming" or "Gracefully Conceding": Creative Nonfiction Stories of Aging With Multiple Sclerosis

Aging with multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex phenomenon. Some individuals report physical and cognitive dysfunctions regarding these combined experiences, whereas others report perceived improvements in quality of life. Beyond this, little is known regarding how people make sense of, and come to embody, negative or positive experiences of MS. Thus, our objectives were to (a) explore how people made sense of aging with MS and (b) present this in an artful, engaging, transformative way. To achieve this, we conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with older adults who had MS, analyzed data using pluralistic narrative analyses, and presented results through two creative nonfictions. We detail our process of creating the nonfictions before presenting the different stories of aging with MS, namely "Kicking and Screaming" and "Gracefully Conceding." We then offer recommendations and implications for using these stories as knowledge translation devices, and further critique the limitations of these stories in practice.