The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: This paper reports on findings from a systematic review designed to investigate the state of systems science research in public health. The objectives were to: (1) explore how systems methodologies are being applied within public health and (2) identify fruitful areas of activity. Design: A systematic review was conducted from existing literature that draws on or uses systems science (in its various forms) and relates to key public health areas of action and concern, including tobacco, alcohol, obesity and the social determinants of health. Data analysis: 117 articles were included in the review. An inductive qualitative content analysis was used for data extraction. The following were systematically extracted from the articles: approach, methodology, transparency, strengths and weaknesses. These were then organised according to theme (ie, commonalities between studies within each category), in order to provide an overview of the state of the field as a whole. The assessment of data quality was intrinsic to the goals of the review itself, and therefore, was carried out as part of the analysis. Results: 4 categories of research were identified from the review, ranging from editorial and commentary pieces to complex system dynamic modelling. Our analysis of each of these categories of research highlighted areas of potential for systems science to strengthen public health efforts, while also revealing a number of limitations in the dynamic systems modelling being carried out in public health. Conclusions: There is a great deal of interest in how the application of systems concepts and approach might aid public health. Our analysis suggests that soft systems modelling techniques are likely to be the most useful addition to public health, and align well with current debate around knowledge transfer and policy. However, the full range of systems methodologies is yet to be engaged with by public health researchers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,322
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · Cited by 10,817
(2000) · University of Maribor digital library (University of Maribor) · Cited by 9,354
Powers, C. H., & Giddens, A. (1988) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2579442 · Cited by 8,828
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581960501000110 · Cited by 2,132
Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-59 · Cited by 2,042
Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology
White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006) · Library Trends · doi:10.1353/lib.2006.0053 · Cited by 1,999
Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?
Greenhalgh, T., Howick, J., Maskrey, N., & for the Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g3725 · Cited by 1,766
Forrester, J. W. (1969) · Cited by 1,571
Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be?
Hawe, P., Shiell, A., & Riley, T. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1561 · Cited by 1,244
Cited by
The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health
Rutter, H., Savona, N., Glonti, K., Bibby, J., Cummins, S., Finegood, D. T., Greaves, F., Harper, L., Hawe, P., Moore, L., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31267-9 · Cited by 1,260
Moore, G. F., Evans, R. E., Hawkins, J., Littlecott, H., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Bonell, C., & Murphy, S. (2019) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389018803219 · Cited by 471
Understanding the rise of cardiometabolic diseases in low- and middle-income countries
Miranda, J. J., Barrientos-Gutiérrez, T., Corvalan, C., Hyder, A. A., Lazo-Porras, M., Oni, T., & Wells, J. C. K. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0644-7 · Cited by 365
Whole systems approaches to obesity and other complex public health challenges: a systematic review
Bagnall, A.-M., Radley, D., Jones, R., Gately, P., Nobles, J., Van Dijk, M., Blackshaw, J., Montel, S., & Sahota, P. (2019) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-018-6274-z · Cited by 322
Bowditch, L., Molloy, C., King, B., Abedi, M., Jackson, S., Bierbaum, M., Yu, Y., Raggett, L., Salmon, P., Braithwaite, J., et al. (2026) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2025-019063 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Carey, G., Malbon, E., Carey, N., Joyce, A., Crammond, B., & Carey, A.
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2015-12
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e009002
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2232278549
- Cited by
- 432
- References
- 83
- FWCI
- 6.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009002
- The paper
- Carey, G., Malbon, E., Carey, N., Joyce, A., Crammond, B., & Carey, A. (2015). Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
