eCAM Advance Access published online on December 1, 2006
eCAM, doi:10.1093/ecam/nel079
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 University of Toronto, Canada
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. The purpose of this paper is to bring clarity to the emerging conceptual and methodological literature that focuses on understanding and evaluating complex or ‘whole’ systems of healthcare. An international working group reviewed literature from interdisciplinary or interprofessional groups describing approaches to the evaluation of complex systems of healthcare. The following four key approaches were identified: a framework from the MRC (UK), whole systems research, whole medical systems research described by NCCAM (USA) and a model from NAFKAM (Norway). Main areas of congruence include acknowledgment of the inherent complexity of many healthcare interventions and the need to find new ways to evaluate these; the need to describe and understand the components of complex interventions in context (as they are actually practiced); the necessity of using mixed methods including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (explanatory and pragmatic) and qualitative approaches; the perceived benefits of a multidisciplinary team approach to research; and the understanding that methodological developments in this field can be applied to both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as well as conventional therapies. In contrast, the approaches differ in the following ways: terminology used, the extent to which the approach attempts to be applicable to both CAM and conventional medical interventions; the prioritization of research questions (in order of what should be done first) especially with respect to how the ‘definitive’ RCT fits into the process of assessing complex healthcare systems; and the need for a staged approach. There appears to be a growing international understanding of the need for a new perspective on assessing complex healthcare systems.
Received January 16, 2006
Accepted September 25, 2006
Commentary
Evaluating Complex Healthcare Systems: A Critique of Four Approaches
Heather Boon 1 *, Hugh MacPherson 2, Sue Fleishman 3, Sameline Grimsgaard 4, Mary Koithan 5, Arne Johan Norheim 6, and Harald Walach 7
2 University of York, UK
3 Oregon College of Oriental Medicine, USA
4 University Hospital of North Norway, Norway
5 University of Arizona, USA
6 National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, University of Tromsø, Norway
7 University of Northampton, UK
Heather Boon, E-mail: heather.boon{at}utoronto.ca
Abstract 
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. H. Logue 'The Science of CAIM: What's Next for Complementary, Alternative and Integrative Medical Research?' Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., May 2, 2008; (2008) nen028v1. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|