Cochrane, London, UK.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Jun 1;7(6):569-571. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.05.
This commentary addresses two points raised by Kitson and colleagues' article. First, increasing interest in applying the Complexity Theory lens in healthcare needs further systematic work to create some commonality between concepts used. Second, our need to adopt a better understanding of how these systems organise so we can change the systems overall behaviour, creates a paradox. We seek to manipulate systems that self-organise and follow their own internal rules. Although, our actions may impact and indeed meet some of our objectives, system behaviour will always emerge with unpredictable consequences. Likewise, outcomes at the aggregated level of the system never reaches an optimal point as defined by the 'external controller.' Kitson and colleagues' theoretical model may struggle to resolve the paradox of gaining control over the multiple knowledge translation (KT) systems covered by the model, because theoretically these systems retain control under the principle of self-organisation. That is not to suggest that individual agents cannot influence system dynamics just that the desired outcome cannot be guaranteed. Indeed, for systems to change they will need strong incentives.
这篇评论讨论了 Kitson 及其同事文章中提出的两个观点。首先,将复杂性理论视角应用于医疗保健领域的兴趣日益浓厚,需要进一步进行系统的工作,以在使用的概念之间建立一些共性。其次,我们需要更好地理解这些系统如何组织,以便我们能够改变系统的整体行为,这就产生了一个悖论。我们试图操纵自组织并遵循自身内部规则的系统。尽管我们的行动可能会影响甚至实现我们的部分目标,但系统行为总是会产生不可预测的后果。同样,由于“外部控制器”的定义,系统的聚合水平上的结果永远不会达到最佳点。Kitson 及其同事的理论模型可能难以解决模型涵盖的多个知识转化 (KT) 系统的控制悖论,因为从理论上讲,这些系统在自组织原则下保留控制。这并不是说个体代理人不能影响系统动态,只是不能保证预期结果。实际上,系统要发生变化,就需要强有力的激励措施。