matt egan

Background  Given the complex determinants of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and the dynamic policy landscape, researchers and policy-makers are exploring the use of systems thinking and complexity science (STCS) in developing effective policies. The aim of this review is to systematically identify and analyse existing applications of STCS-informed methods in NCD prevention policy.Methods  We searched academic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE) for all publications indexed by October 13, 2020, screening titles, abstracts and full texts and extracting data according to published guidelines. We summarised key data from each study, mapping applications of methods informed by STCS to policy process domains. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify advantages, limitations, barriers and facilitators to using STCS.Results  4681 papers were screened and 112 papers were included in this review. The most common policy areas were tobacco control, obesity prevention and physical activity promotion. Methods applied included system dynamics modelling, agent-based modelling and concept mapping. Advantages included supporting evidence-informed decisionmaking; modelling complex systems and addressing multi-sectoral problems. Limitations included the abstraction of reality by STCS methods, despite aims of encompassing greater complexity. Challenges included resource-intensiveness; lack of stakeholder trust in models; and results that were too complex to be comprehensible to stakeholders. Ensuring stakeholder ownership and presenting findings in a user-friendly way facilitated STCS use.Conclusion  This review maps the proliferating applications of STCS methods in NCD prevention policy. STCS methods have the potential to generate tailored and dynamic evidence, adding robustness to evidence-informed policy-making, but must be accessible to policy stakeholders and have strong stakeholder ownership to build consensus and change stakeholder perspectives. Evaluations of whether, and under what circumstances, STCS methods lead to more effective policies compared to conventional methods are lacking, and would enable more targeted and constructive use of these methods.

In response to the magnitude of harms caused by alcohol, the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol (GAS) was endorsed in 2010. We analysed submissions to the 2019 WHO consultation on the implementation of the GAS to identify how different stakeholders frame alcohol use and control; and to assess how stakeholders engage with the consultation process, with possibly harmful consequences for public health policy.

All submissions from WHO Member States, international organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), academic institutions and private sector entities were identified and used as data for an inductive framing analysis. This involved close reading and data familiarisation, thematic coding and identifying emergent framings. Through the analysis of texts, framing analysis can give insights into the values and interests of stakeholders. Because framing influences how issues are conceptualised and addressed, framing analysis is a useful tool to study policy-making processes.

We identified 161 unique submissions and seven attachments. Emerging frames were grouped according to their function: defining the problem, assigning causation, proposing solutions, or justifying and persuading. Submissions varied in terms of the framing they deployed and how this was presented, eg, how the problem was defined. Proposed policy solutions also varied. Targeted solutions emphasising individual responsibility tended to be supported by industry and some Member States. Calls for universal regulation and global mobilisation often came from NGOs and academia. Stakeholders drew on evidence and specific value systems to support the adoption of certain problem and solution ideas and to oppose competing framing.

Alcohol control is a contested policy field in which different stakeholders use framing to set the agenda and influence what policy solutions are considered legitimate. WHO should consider which interests are served by these different framings and how to weigh different stakeholders in the consultation process.

Advocates suggest that a paradigm shift in preventive health towards systems thinking is desirable and may be underway. In a recent study of policy-makers’ opinions, Haynes and colleagues found a mixed response to an Australian initiative that sought to apply systems theories and associated methods to preventive health. Some were enthusiastic about systems, but others were concerned or unconvinced about its usefulness. This commentary responds to such concerns. We argue that a systems perspective can help provide policy-makers with timely evidence to inform decisions about intervention planning and delivery. We also suggest that research applying a systems perspective could provide policy-makers with evidence to support planning and incremental decision-making; make recommendations to support intervention adaptability; consider potential barriers due to incoherent systems, and consider the political consequences of interventions.