Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39831133›Full record

ArticleSystem dynamics review

Participatory Modeling for High Complexity, Multi-System Issues: Challenges and Recommendations for Balancing Qualitative Understanding and Quantitative Questions.

Arielle R Deutsch, Leah Frerichs, Madeline Perry, Mohammad S Jalali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in System dynamics review. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Arielle R DeutschAvera Research Institute, Avera Health, Sioux Falls, SD, USA.
Leah FrerichsGillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Madeline PerryGillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Mohammad S JalaliMGH Institute for Technology Assessment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Community Based System Dynamics Models of Alcohol and Substance Exposed Pregnancy in Northern Plains American Indian WomenR01DA050696 · NIDA · AVERA MCKENNAN · PI DEUTSCH, ARIELLE R. · 2020 to 2023
$1.5M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA050696
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community stakeholder participation can be incredibly valuable for the qualitative model development process. However, modelers often encounter challenges for participatory modeling projects focusing on high-complexity, synergistic interactions between multiple issues, systems, and granularity. The diverse stakeholder perspectives and volumes of information necessary for developing such models can yield qualitative models that are difficult to translate into quantitative simulation or clear insight for informed decision-making. There are few reccomended best practices for developing high-complexity, participatory models. We use an ongoing project as a case study to highlight three practical challenges for tackling high-complexity, multi-system issues with system dynamics tools. These challenges include balanced and respectful stakeholder engagement, defining boundaries and levels of variable aggregation, and timing and processes for qualitative/quantitative model integration. Our five recommendations to address these challenges serve as a foundation for further research on methods for developing translatable qualitative multi-system models for informing actions for systemic change.

Indexed as

multiple system modelsqualitative quantitative integrationstakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID39831133
PMCPMC11741230

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.