Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42642760›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2026

Systems thinking in public health interventions: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators.

Mohammed Alabdulaali, Abeer Alharthi, Olga Siemers, Dana Alsuwaidan, Amani Alruwaili, Abrar Almutairi, Muaddi Alharbi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Mohammed AlabdulaaliOffice of the Assistant Minister of Health for Health Services, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abeer AlharthiDepartment of Community and Mental Health Nursing, College of Nursing, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia. aalharthi3@ksu.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7952-5851
Olga SiemersPolicy Institute, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.
Dana AlsuwaidanOffice of the Scientific Research Advisor to the Assistant Minister of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Amani AlruwailiOffice of the Scientific Research Advisor to the Assistant Minister of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abrar AlmutairiOffice of the Scientific Research Advisor to the Assistant Minister of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Muaddi AlharbiOffice of the Assistant Minister of Health for Health Services, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

Ongoing Research Funding program ORF-2026-1868
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystems thinking has been promoted to address complex public health challenges involving fragmented systems, multi-sectoral governance, and interacting social determinants of health. However, its application in real-world public health interventions and the conditions influencing implementation remain understudied. This systematic review examines how systems thinking has been operationalized in public health interventions, identifies key facilitators and barriers to implementation, and interprets these findings in relation to broader public health practice and ongoing health system reforms in Saudi Arabia.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review (2013-2025; final search November 2025) using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Studies applying systems thinking in population- or community-level public health interventions with implementation findings were included; conceptual and non-intervention studies were excluded. Data on approaches, frameworks, facilitators, and barriers were extracted and narratively synthesized. Quality was appraised using the MMAT (2018). The review was registered (PROSPERO; registration number CRD420251267775).

findingsOf 948 records identified, fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, spanning communicable and non-communicable disease interventions across high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Systems thinking approaches included learning health systems, systems analysis and improvement approaches, community-based system dynamics, causal loop diagramming, and whole-system or multi-sectoral designs. Systems thinking was embedded within implementation processes, including iterative learning cycles, participatory system mapping, and quality improvement mechanisms. Key facilitators included stakeholder engagement and co-production, integration within existing health system structures, incremental capacity building, and leadership support. Barriers included challenges translating systems concepts into actionable interventions, workforce constraints, fragmented or non-interoperable data systems, rigid governance arrangements, and external disruptions such as COVID-19. Study designs were predominantly qualitative or mixed methods, with heterogeneity in evaluation approaches and limited long-term outcome assessment.

interpretationSystems thinking in public health is applied mainly as an implementation-embedded practice rather than an analytical tool. Its effectiveness depends on participatory processes, adaptive learning, and supportive governance and data systems. These findings provide practical insights for health system reform contexts, including Saudi Arabia, where systems thinking can support integrated and adaptive public health interventions.

Indexed as

Public HealthSystems AnalysisHumansPublic Health InfrastructureSaudi ArabiaComplex adaptive systemsHealth services researchImplementation sciencePublic healthSocial determinants of healthSystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID42642760
PMCPMC13508217

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.