为多重危机做好准备?需要复杂性科学和系统思维来解决全球和国家证据差距问题

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Aku Kwamie, Sara Causevic, Goran Tomson, Ali Sie, Rainer Sauerborn, Kumanan Rasanathan, Ole Petter Ottersen
{"title":"为多重危机做好准备?需要复杂性科学和系统思维来解决全球和国家证据差距问题","authors":"Aku Kwamie, Sara Causevic, Goran Tomson, Ali Sie, Rainer Sauerborn, Kumanan Rasanathan, Ole Petter Ottersen","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Sustainable Development Goals are far off track. The convergence of global threats such as climate change, conflict and the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic—among others—call for better data and research evidence that can account for the complex interactions between these threats. In the time of polycrisis, global and national-level data and research evidence must address complexity. Viewed through the lens of ‘systemic risk’, there is a need for data and research evidence that is sufficiently representative of the multiple interdependencies of global threats. Instead, current global published literature seems to be dominated by correlational, descriptive studies that are unable to account for complex interactions. The literature is geographically limited and rarely from countries facing severe polycrisis threats. As a result, country guidance fails to treat these threats interdependently. Applied systems thinking can offer more diverse research methods that are able to generate complex evidence. This is achievable through more participatory processes that will assist stakeholders in defining system boundaries and behaviours. Additionally, applied systems thinking can draw on known methods for hypothesising, modelling, visualising and testing complex system properties over time. Application is much needed for generating evidence at the global level and within national-level policy processes and structures. All data relevant to the study are included in the article.","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prepared for the polycrisis? The need for complexity science and systems thinking to address global and national evidence gaps\",\"authors\":\"Aku Kwamie, Sara Causevic, Goran Tomson, Ali Sie, Rainer Sauerborn, Kumanan Rasanathan, Ole Petter Ottersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Sustainable Development Goals are far off track. The convergence of global threats such as climate change, conflict and the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic—among others—call for better data and research evidence that can account for the complex interactions between these threats. In the time of polycrisis, global and national-level data and research evidence must address complexity. Viewed through the lens of ‘systemic risk’, there is a need for data and research evidence that is sufficiently representative of the multiple interdependencies of global threats. Instead, current global published literature seems to be dominated by correlational, descriptive studies that are unable to account for complex interactions. The literature is geographically limited and rarely from countries facing severe polycrisis threats. As a result, country guidance fails to treat these threats interdependently. Applied systems thinking can offer more diverse research methods that are able to generate complex evidence. This is achievable through more participatory processes that will assist stakeholders in defining system boundaries and behaviours. Additionally, applied systems thinking can draw on known methods for hypothesising, modelling, visualising and testing complex system properties over time. Application is much needed for generating evidence at the global level and within national-level policy processes and structures. All data relevant to the study are included in the article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014887\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014887","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

可持续发展目标远远偏离了轨道。气候变化、冲突和 COVID-19 大流行病的持久影响等全球性威胁交织在一起,需要更好的数据和研究证据来说明这些威胁之间复杂的相互作用。在多重危机时期,全球和国家层面的数据和研究证据必须解决复杂性问题。从 "系统性风险 "的角度来看,我们需要能充分反映全球威胁多重相互依存关系的数据和研究证据。相反,目前出版的全球文献似乎主要是相关性、描述性研究,无法解释复杂的相互作用。文献的地域性有限,而且很少来自面临严重多重危机威胁的国家。因此,国家指导未能相互依存地对待这些威胁。应用系统思维可以提供更多样化的研究方法,能够产生复杂的证据。这可以通过更具参与性的过程来实现,这些过程将帮助利益相关者确定系统边界和行为。此外,应用系统思维还可以借鉴已知的方法,对复杂的系统特性进行假设、建模、可视化和长期测试。在全球层面以及国家层面的政策进程和结构中,亟需应用系统思维来生成证据。与研究相关的所有数据均包含在文章中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prepared for the polycrisis? The need for complexity science and systems thinking to address global and national evidence gaps
The Sustainable Development Goals are far off track. The convergence of global threats such as climate change, conflict and the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic—among others—call for better data and research evidence that can account for the complex interactions between these threats. In the time of polycrisis, global and national-level data and research evidence must address complexity. Viewed through the lens of ‘systemic risk’, there is a need for data and research evidence that is sufficiently representative of the multiple interdependencies of global threats. Instead, current global published literature seems to be dominated by correlational, descriptive studies that are unable to account for complex interactions. The literature is geographically limited and rarely from countries facing severe polycrisis threats. As a result, country guidance fails to treat these threats interdependently. Applied systems thinking can offer more diverse research methods that are able to generate complex evidence. This is achievable through more participatory processes that will assist stakeholders in defining system boundaries and behaviours. Additionally, applied systems thinking can draw on known methods for hypothesising, modelling, visualising and testing complex system properties over time. Application is much needed for generating evidence at the global level and within national-level policy processes and structures. All data relevant to the study are included in the article.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信