Ripple effects mapping: capturing the wider impacts of systems change efforts in public health.

BACKGROUND: Systems approaches are currently being advocated and implemented to address complex challenges in Public Health. These approaches work by bringing multi-sectoral stakeholders together to develop a collective understanding of the system, and then to identify places where they can leverage change across the system. Systems approaches are unpredictable, where cause-and-effect cannot always be disentangled, and unintended consequences - positive and negative - frequently arise. Evaluating such approaches is difficult and new methods are warranted. METHODS: Ripple Effects Mapping (REM) is a qualitative method which can capture the wider impacts, and adaptive nature, of a systems approach. Using a case study example from the evaluation of a physical activity-orientated systems approach in Gloucestershire, we: a) introduce the adapted REM method; b) describe how REM was applied in the example; c) explain how REM outputs were analysed; d) provide examples of how REM outputs were used; and e) describe the strengths, limitations, and future uses of REM based on our reflections. RESULTS: Ripple Effects Mapping is a participatory method that requires the active input of programme stakeholders in data gathering workshops. It produces visual outputs (i.e., maps) of the programme activities and impacts, which are mapped along a timeline to understand the temporal dimension of systems change efforts. The REM outputs from our example were created over several iterations, with data collected every 3-4 months, to build a picture of activities and impacts that have continued or ceased. Workshops took place both in person and online. An inductive content analysis was undertaken to describe and quantify the patterns within the REM outputs. Detailed guidance related to the preparation, delivery, and analysis of REM are included in this paper. CONCLUSION: REM may help to advance our understanding and evaluation of complex systems approaches, especially within the field of Public Health. We therefore invite other researchers, practitioners and policymakers to use REM and continuously evolve the method to enhance its application and practical utility.

Navigating the river(s) of systems change: a multi-methods, qualitative evaluation exploring the implementation of a systems approach to physical activity in Gloucestershire, England.

OBJECTIVES: Systems approaches aim to change the environments in which people live, through cross-sectoral working, by harnessing the complexity of the problem. This paper sought to identify: (1) the strategies which support the implementation of We Can Move (WCM), (2) the barriers to implementation, (3) key contextual factors that influence implementation and (4) impacts associated with WCM. DESIGN: A multi-methods evaluation of WCM was completed between April 2019 and April 2021. Ripple Effects Mapping (REM) and semi-structured interviewers were used. Framework and content analysis were systematically applied to the dataset. SETTING: WCM-a physical activity orientated systems approach being implemented in Gloucestershire, England. PARTICIPANTS: 31 stakeholder interviews and 25 stakeholders involved in 15 REM workshops. RESULTS: A white-water rafting analogy was developed to present the main findings. The successful implementation of WCM required a facilitative, well-connected and knowledgeable guide (ie, the lead organisation), a crew (ie, wider stakeholders) who's vision and agenda aligned with WCM's purpose, and a flexible delivery approach that could respond to ever-changing nature of the river (ie, local and national circumstances). The context surrounding WCM further strengthened and hampered its implementation. Barriers included evaluative difficulties, a difference in stakeholder and organisational perspectives, misaligned expectations and understandings of WCM, and COVID-19 implications (COVID-19 also presented as a facilitative factor). WCM was said to strengthen cohesion and collaboration between partners, benefit other agendas and policies (eg, mental health, town planning, inequality), and improve physical activity opportunities and environments. CONCLUSIONS: This paper is one of the first to evaluate a systems approach to increasing physical activity. We highlight key strategies and contextual factors that influenced the implementation of WCM and demonstrate some of the wider benefits from such approaches. Further research and methodologies are required to build the evidence base surrounding systems approaches in Public Health.