Health and Disease Are Dynamic Complex-Adaptive States Implications for Practice and Research

Interoception, the ability to convey one's overall physiological state, allows people to describe their health along an experiential continuum, from excellent, very good, good, fair to poor. Each health state reflects a distinct pattern of one's overall function. This assay provides a new frame of understanding health and disease as complex-adaptive system states of the person as-a-whole. It firstly describes how complex patterns can emerge from simple equations. It then discusses how clinical medicine in certain domains has started to explore the pattern characteristics resulting in the heterogeneity of disease, and how this better understanding has improved patient management. The experiential state of health can be surprising to the observer-some are in good health with disabling disease, others are in poor health without the evidence of any. The main part of the assay describes the underlying complexity principles that contribute to health, and synthesizes available evidence from various research perspectives to support the philosophic/theoretical proposition of the complex-adaptive nature of health. It shows how health states arise from complex-adaptive system dynamics amongst the variables of a hierarchically layered system comprising the domains of a person's macro-level external environment to his nano-level biological blueprint. The final part suggests that the frame of health as a dynamic complex-adaptive state defines a new paradigm, and outlines ways of translating these expanded understandings to clinical practice, future research, and health system design.

Health care frames - from Virchow to Obama and beyond: the changing frames in health care and their implications for patient care

RATIONALE, AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

Framing allows us to highlight some aspects of an issue, thereby bringing them to the forefront of our thinking, talking and acting. As a consequence, framing also distracts our attention away from other issues. Over time, health care has used various frames to explain its activities. This paper traces the emergence of various health care frames since the 1850s to better understand how we reached current ways of thinking and practicing.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The succession of the most prominent frames can be summarized as: medicine as a social science; the germ theory of disease; health care as a battleground (or the war metaphor); managing health care resources (or the market metaphor); Health for All (the social justice model); evidence-based medicine; and Obama Care. The focus of these frames is causal, instrumental, political/economic or social in nature. All remain relevant; however, recycling individual past frames in response to current problems will not achieve the outcomes we seek. Placing the individual and his/her needs at the centre (the attractor for the health system) of our thinking, as emphasized by the World Health Organization's International Classification of Function framework and the European Society of Person Centered Health Care, may provide the frame to refocus health and health care as interdependent experiences across individual, community and societal domains. Shifting beyond the entrenched instrumental and economic thinking will be challenging but necessary for the sake of patients, health professionals, society and the economy.