What Complexity Science Predicts About the Potential of Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning to Improve Primary Care.

Primary care physicians are likely both excited and apprehensive at the prospects for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). Complexity science may provide insight into which AI/ML applications will most likely affect primary care in the future. AI/ML has successfully diagnosed some diseases from digital images, helped with administrative tasks such as writing notes in the electronic record by converting voice to text, and organized information from multiple sources within a health care system. AI/ML has less successfully recommended treatments for patients with complicated single diseases such as cancer; or improved diagnosing, patient shared decision making, and treating patients with multiple comorbidities and social determinant challenges. AI/ML has magnified disparities in health equity, and almost nothing is known of the effect of AI/ML on primary care physician-patient relationships. An intervention in Victoria, Australia showed promise where an AI/ML tool was used only as an adjunct to complex medical decision making. Putting these findings in a complex adaptive system framework, AI/ML tools will likely work when its tasks are limited in scope, have clean data that are mostly linear and deterministic, and fit well into existing workflows. AI/ML has rarely improved comprehensive care, especially in primary care settings, where data have a significant number of errors and inconsistencies. Primary care should be intimately involved in AI/ML development, and its tools carefully tested before implementation; and unlike electronic health records, not just assumed that AI/ML tools will improve primary care work life, quality, safety, and person-centered clinical decision making.

From cause and effect to causes and effects.

It is now-at least loosely-acknowledged that most health and clinical outcomes are influenced by different interacting causes. Surprisingly, medical research studies are nearly universally designed to study-usually in a binary way-the effect of a single cause. Recent experiences during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic brought to the forefront that most of our challenges in medicine and healthcare deal with systemic, that is, interdependent and interconnected problems. Understanding these problems defy simplistic dichotomous research methodologies. These insights demand a shift in our thinking from 'cause and effect' to 'causes and effects' since this transcends the classical way of Cartesian reductionist thinking. We require a shift to a 'causes and effects' frame so we can choose the research methodology that reflects the relationships between variables of interest-one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one or many-to-many. One-to-one (or cause and effect) relationships are amenable to the traditional randomized control trial design, while all others require systemic designs to understand 'causes and effects'. Researchers urgently need to re-evaluate their science models and embrace research designs that allow an exploration of the clinically obvious multiple 'causes and effects' on health and disease. Clinical examples highlight the application of various systemic research methodologies and demonstrate how 'causes and effects' explain the heterogeneity of clinical outcomes. This shift in scientific thinking will allow us to find the necessary personalized or precise clinical interventions that address the underlying reasons for the variability of clinical outcomes and will contribute to greater health equity.

COVID-19 - An Opportunity to Redesign Health Policy Thinking.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) dramatically unveiled the fragile state of the world's health and social systems - the lack of emergency health crisis preparedness (under-resourced, weak leadership, strategic plans without clear lines of authority), siloed policy frameworks (focus on individual diseases and the lack of integration of health into the whole of societal activity and its impact on individual as well as community well-being and prosperity), and unclear communication (misguided rationale of policies, inconsistent interpretation of data). The net result is fear - about the disease, about risks and survival, and about economic security. We discuss the interdependencies among these domains and their emergent dynamics and emphasise the need for a robust distributed health system and for transparent communication as the basis for trust in the system. We conclude that systems thinking and complexity sciences should inform the redesign of strong health systems urgently to respond to the current health crisis and over time to build healthy, resilient, and productive communities.

Without Systems and Complexity Thinking There Is no Progress - or Why Bureaucracy Needs to Become Curious Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners' Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health".

The bureaucracy's goal is to maintain uniformity and control within discrete areas of activity and relies on hierarchical processes and procedural correctness as means to suppress autonomous decision making. That worldview, however, is unsuited for problem solving of real world VUCA (Volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity) problems. Solving wicked problems in the VUCA world requires curiosity, creativity and collaboration, and a willingness to deeply engage and an ability to painstakingly work through their seemingly contradictory and chaotic pathways. In addition, it necessitates leadership. Leaders require a deep - indeed academic - understanding of the nature of the problems and the veracity of various problem-solving approaches. Leadership after all means "[facilitating] the necessary adaptive work that needs to be done by the people connected to the problem." That are the people at the coalface who understand and have to manage the complexities relating to problems unique to their local environment for which of the shelf solutions never work. Systems and complexity thinking is more than a tool, it is - in a sense - a way of being, namely deeply interested in understanding the highly interconnected and interdependent nature of the issues affecting our life and work. Hence, system and complexity thinking is, contrary to what Haynes and colleagues state in their "summation for the public reader," neither "overwhelming and hard [nor difficult] to use practically." Such a view is as much misleading as self-defeating.

Better and fulfilling healthcare at lower costs: The need to manage health systems as complex adaptive systems.

Rising healthcare costs are major concerns in most high-income countries. Yet, political measures to reduce costs have so far remained futile and have damaged the best interests of patients and citizen. We therefore explored the possibilities to analyze healthcare systems as a socially constructed complex adaptive system (CAS) and found that by their very nature such CAS tend not to respond as expected to top-down interventions. As CAS have emergent behaviors, the focus on their drivers - purpose, economy and behavioral norms - requires particular attention. First, the importance of understanding the purpose of health care as improvement of health and its experience has been emphasized by two recent complementary re-definitions of health and disease. The economic models underpinning today's healthcare - profit maximization - have shifted the focus away from its main purpose. Second, although economic considerations are important, they must serve and not dominate the provision of healthcare delivery. Third, expected health professionals' behavioral norms - to first consider the health and wellbeing of patients - have been codified in the universally accepted Declaration of Geneva 2017. Considering these three aspects it becomes clear that complex adaptive healthcare systems need mindful top-down/bottom-up leadership that supports the nature of innovation for health care driven by local needs. The systemic focus on improving people's health will then result in significant cost reductions.

Resilience for health-an emergent property of the "health systems as a whole".

Resilience has become a popular term, and its meaning varies widely depending on the context of its use. Its Latin origin, resilire, means "bouncing back"-should bouncing back be understood literally or rather metaphorically in the context of health, illness, dis-ease, and disease? This essay examines ecological, physiological, personal, and health system perspectives inherent in the concept of resilience. It emerges that regardless of the level of aggregation, resilience is a systems property-it is as much a property of each of the subsystems of network physiology, the person, and the health care delivery system as it is a property of the health system as a whole. Given the interdependencies between people, their internal and external environments, and the health service system, strengthening resilience, ie, the ability to positively adapt to challenges and changing circumstances, will require a broad-based public discourse: "How can we strengthen resilience and health for the benefit of people and society at large".

'Multimorbidity' as the manifestation of network disturbances.

We argue that 'multimorbidity' is the manifestation of interconnected physiological network processes within an individual in his or her socio-cultural environment. Networks include genomic, metabolomic, proteomic, neuroendocrine, immune and mitochondrial bioenergetic elements, as well as social, environmental and health care networks. Stress systems and other physiological mechanisms create feedback loops that integrate and regulate internal networks within the individual. Minor (e.g. daily hassles) and major (e.g. trauma) stressful life experiences perturb internal and social networks resulting in physiological instability with changes ranging from improved resilience to unhealthy adaptation and 'clinical disease'. Understanding 'multimorbidity' as a complex adaptive systems response to biobehavioural and socio-environmental networks is essential. Thus, designing integrative care delivery approaches that more adequately address the underlying disease processes as the manifestation of a state of physiological dysregulation is essential. This framework can shape care delivery approaches to meet the individual's care needs in the context of his or her underlying illness experience. It recognizes 'multimorbidity' and its symptoms as the end product of complex physiological processes, namely, stress activation and mitochondrial energetics, and suggests new opportunities for treatment and prevention. The future of 'multimorbidity' management might become much more discerning by combining the balancing of physiological dysregulation with targeted personalized biotechnology interventions such as small molecule therapeutics targeting specific cellular components of the stress response, with community-embedded interventions that involve addressing psycho-socio-cultural impediments that would aim to strengthen personal/social resilience and enhance social capital.

People-centred health systems, a bottom-up approach: where theory meets empery.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Health systems are complex and constantly adapt to changing demands. These complex-adaptive characteristics are rarely considered in the current bureaucratic top-down approaches to health system reforms aimed to constrain demand and expenditure growth. The economic focus fails to address the needs of patients, providers and communities, and ultimately results in declining effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system as well as the health of the wider community. A needs-focused complex-adaptive health system can be represented by the 'healthcare vortex' model; how to build a needs-focused complex-adaptive health system is illustrated by Eastern Deanery AIDS Relief Program approaches in the poor neighbourhoods of Nairobi, Kenya. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A small group of nurses and community health workers focused on the care of terminally ill HIV/AIDS patients. This work identified additional problems: tuberculosis (TB) was underdiagnosed and undertreated, a local TB-technician was trained to run a local lab, a courier services helped to reach all at need, collaboration with the Ministry of Health established local TB and HIV treatment programmes and philanthropists helped to supplement treatment with nutrition support. Maternal-to-child HIV-prevention and adolescent counselling services addressed additional needs. The 'theory of the healthcare vortex' indeed matches the 'empery of the real world experiences'. Locally developed and delivered adaptive, people-centred health systems, a bottom-up community and provider initiated approach, deliver highly effective and sustainable health care despite significant resource constraints.

Diagnosis - the limiting focus of taxonomy.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The focus on the diagnosis is a pivotal aspect of medical practice since antiquity. Diagnostic taxonomy helped to categorize ailments to improve medical care, and in its social sense resulted in validation of the sick role for some, but marginalization or stigmatization for others. In the medical industrial complex, diagnostic taxonomy structured health care financing, management and practitioner remuneration. However, with increasing demands from multiple agencies, there are increasing unintended and unwarranted consequences of our current taxonomies and diagnostic processes resulting from the conglomeration of underpinning concepts, theories, information and motivations. RESULTS: We argue that the increasing focus on the diagnosis resulted in excessive compartmentalization - 'partialism' - of medical practice, diminishing medical care and being naively simplistic in light of the emerging understanding of the interconnected nature of the diseasome. The human is a complex organic system of interconnecting dynamics and feedback loops responding to internal and external forces including genetic, epigenetic and environmental attractors, rather than the sum of multiple discrete organs which can develop isolated diseases or multiple morbidities. Solutions to these unintended consequences of many contemporary health system processes involve revisiting the nature of diagnostic taxonomies and the processes of their construction. A dynamic taxonomic framework would shift to more relevant attractors at personal, clinical and health system levels recognizing the non-linear nature of health and disease. Human health at an individual, group and population level is the ability to adapt to internal and external stressors with resilience throughout the life course, yet diagnostic taxonomies are increasingly constructed around fixed anchors. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding diagnosis as dissecting, pigeonholing or bean counting (learning by dividing) is no longer useful, the challenge for the future is to understand the big picture (learning by connecting). Diagnostic categorization needs to embrace a meta-learning approach open to human variability.

Health care frames - from Virchow to Obama and beyond: the changing frames in health care and their implications for patient care.

RATIONALE, AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: Framing allows us to highlight some aspects of an issue, thereby bringing them to the forefront of our thinking, talking and acting. As a consequence, framing also distracts our attention away from other issues. Over time, health care has used various frames to explain its activities. This paper traces the emergence of various health care frames since the 1850s to better understand how we reached current ways of thinking and practicing. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The succession of the most prominent frames can be summarized as: medicine as a social science; the germ theory of disease; health care as a battleground (or the war metaphor); managing health care resources (or the market metaphor); Health for All (the social justice model); evidence-based medicine; and Obama Care. The focus of these frames is causal, instrumental, political/economic or social in nature. All remain relevant; however, recycling individual past frames in response to current problems will not achieve the outcomes we seek. Placing the individual and his/her needs at the centre (the attractor for the health system) of our thinking, as emphasized by the World Health Organization's International Classification of Function framework and the European Society of Person Centered Health Care, may provide the frame to refocus health and health care as interdependent experiences across individual, community and societal domains. Shifting beyond the entrenched instrumental and economic thinking will be challenging but necessary for the sake of patients, health professionals, society and the economy.

Generalist solutions to complex problems: generating practice-based evidence--the example of managing multi-morbidity.

BACKGROUND: A growing proportion of people are living with long term conditions. The majority have more than one. Dealing with multi-morbidity is a complex problem for health systems: for those designing and implementing healthcare as well as for those providing the evidence informing practice. Yet the concept of multi-morbidity (the presence of >2 diseases) is a product of the design of health care systems which define health care need on the basis of disease status. So does the solution lie in an alternative model of healthcare? DISCUSSION: Strengthening generalist practice has been proposed as part of the solution to tackling multi-morbidity. Generalism is a professional philosophy of practice, deeply known to many practitioners, and described as expertise in whole person medicine. But generalism lacks the evidence base needed by policy makers and planners to support service redesign. The challenge is to fill this practice-research gap in order to critically explore if and when generalist care offers a robust alternative to management of this complex problem. We need practice-based evidence to fill this gap. By recognising generalist practice as a 'complex intervention' (intervening in a complex system), we outline an approach to evaluate impact using action-research principles. We highlight the implications for those who both commission and undertake research in order to tackle this problem. SUMMARY: Answers to the complex problem of multi-morbidity won't come from doing more of the same. We need to change systems of care, and so the systems for generating evidence to support that care. This paper contributes to that work through outlining a process for generating practice-based evidence of generalist solutions to the complex problem of person-centred care for people with multi-morbidity.

Primary health care organizations - through a conceptual and a political lens.

BACKGROUND: Governments around the world are looking at means to improve health care services and health outcomes for their communities within a sustainable expenditure framework. There is a general agreement that strengthening primary health care is the way for the future. Primary health care organizations (PHCOs) are seen as a means to achieving more effective and efficient health care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: This paper proposes a complex adaptive framework for PHCOs, taking account of health and illness being subjective experiences, health care being 'whole person'-focused, and PHCOs focusing on all of a community's health determinants and community-based health care needs. Such approach would foster building healthy local communities as much as seamless integration of health services for all. However, despite the expressed intensions towards patient-centred health care reform the bureaucratic mindset of Australian health policy makers risks true reform by imposing highly structured - rather than 'simple'- policy and operational rules.

People at the centre of complex adaptive health systems reform.

Health systems are increasingly recognised to be complex adaptive systems (CASs), functionally characterised by their continuing and dynamic adaptation in response to core system drivers, or attractors. The core driver for our health system (and for the health reform strategies intended to achieve it) should clearly be the improvement of people's health - the personal experience of health, regardless of organic abnormalities; we contend that a patient-centred health system requires flexible localised decision making and resource use. The prevailing trend is to use disease protocols, financial management strategies and centralised control of siloed programs to manage our health system. This strategy is suggested to be fatally flawed, as: people's health and health experience as core system drivers are inevitably pre-empted by centralised and standardised strategies; the context specificity of personal experience and the capacity of local systems are overlooked; and in line with CAS patterns and characteristics, these strategies will lead to "unintended" consequences on all parts of the system. In Australia, there is still the time and opportunity for health system redesign that truly places people and their health at the core of the system.

The dynamics of health care reform--learning from a complex adaptive systems theoretical perspective.

Health services demonstrate key features of complex adaptive systems (CAS), they are dynamic and unfold in unpredictable ways, and unfolding events are often unique. To better understand the complex adaptive nature of health systems around a core attractor we propose the metaphor of the health care vortex. We also suggest that in an ideal health care system the core attractor would be personal health attainment. Health care reforms around the world offer an opportunity to analyse health system change from a complex adaptive perspective. At large health care reforms have been pursued disregarding the complex adaptive nature of the health system. The paper details some recent reforms and outlines how to understand their strategies and outcomes, and what could be learnt for future efforts, utilising CAS principles. Current health systems show the inherent properties of a CAS driven by a core attractor of disease and cost containment. We content that more meaningful health systems reform requires the delicate task of shifting the core attractor from disease and cost containment towards health attainment.

Music in the Park. An integrating metaphor for the emerging primary (health) care system.

BACKGROUND: Metaphors are central to the human understanding of complex issues; through the immediate associations they evoke and frame problems and suggest solutions. Our suggestion of Music in the Park as a metaphor for health systems reform brings to the forefront the environmentally diverse but bounded spaces of health services that offer a variety of attractors within their confines, while pushing into the background organizational and economic concerns. REFLECTIONS: Parks, like health services, are embedded in their local landscape, serving their communities, but most importantly parks are public spaces, publically funded, ideally offering universal access and equity and to be shared by all who want to go there. Music, like health, is tangible, technical and scientific, yet ultimately experiential and based on meaning. While it encompasses a wide range of styles and approaches, music making requires as its most important skill active listening which brings with it to be 'in the moment', to take personal risks and to draw energy and inspiration from the participants. Hence 'audiences' are equally active participants because music only has meaning if it internally resonates with the listener and only can exist in what is a co-constructed experience. CONCLUSIONS: Music in the Park is a metaphor for primary health care systems based on shared values of experts and unique local communities. Health professionals are players in this arena, who develop and practise the full range of their skills in response to individual and community needs and preferences. Their leadership works through inspiration and empowerment, making patients 'co-producers' of their own health and 'co-shapers' of their health services.

Health at the center of health systems reform: how philosophy can inform policy.

Contemporary views hold that health and disease can be defined as objective states and thus should determine the design and delivery of health services. Yet health concepts are elusive and contestable. Health is neither an individual construction, a reflection of societal expectations, nor only the absence of pathologies. Based on philosophical and sociological theory, empirical evidence, and clinical experience, we argue that health has simultaneously objective and subjective features that converge into a dynamic complex-adaptive health model. Health (or its dysfunction, illness) is a dynamic state representing complex patterns of adaptation to body, mind, social, and environmental challenges, resulting in bodily homeostasis and personal internal coherence. The "balance of health" model-emergent, self-organizing, dynamic, and adaptive-underpins the very essence of medicine. This model should be the foundation for health systems design and also should inform therapeutic approaches, policy decision-making, and the development of emerging health service models. A complex adaptive health system focused on achieving the best possible "personal" health outcomes must provide the broad policy frameworks and resources required to implement people-centered health care. People-centered health systems are emergent in nature, resulting in locally different but mutually compatible solutions across the whole health system.

Revitalizing primary health care and family medicine/primary care in India--disruptive innovation?

CONTEXT: India has rudimentary and fragmented primary health care (PHC) and family medicine systems, yet it also has the policy expectation that PHC should meet the needs of extremely large populations with slums and difficult to reach groups, rapid social and epidemiological transition from developing to developed nation profiles. Historically, the system has lacked impetus to achieve PHC. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of PHC approaches and the current state of PHC and family medicine in India in order to assess the opportunities for their revitalization. METHODS: A narrative review of the published and grey literature on PHC, family medicine, Web2.0 and health informatics key papers and policy documents, pertinent to India. OUTCOMES: A conceptual framework and recommendations for policy makers and practitioner audiences. FINDINGS: PHC is constructed through systems of local providers who address individual, family and local community basic health needs with strong community participation. Successful PHC is a pre-eminent strategy for India to address the determinants of health and the almost chaotic of massive social transition in its institutions and health care sector. There is a lack of an articulated comprehensive framework for the publicly stated goals of improving health and implementing PHC. Also, there exists a very limited education and organization of a medical and PHC workforce who are trained and resourced to address individual, family and local community health and who have become increasingly specialized. However, emerging technology, Health2.0 and user generated health care informatics, which are largely conducted through mobile phones, are co-evolving patient-driven health systems, and potentially enhance PHC and family medicine workforce development. CONCLUSIONS: In order to improve health outcomes in an equitable manner in India, there is a pressing need for a framework for implementing PHC. The co-emergence of information technologies accessible to the mass population and user-driven health care provide a potential catalyst or innovation for this transition.

Knowing--in medicine.

In this paper we argue that knowledge in health care is a multidimensional dynamic construct, in contrast to the prevailing idea of knowledge being an objective state. Polanyi demonstrated that knowledge is personal, that knowledge is discovered, and that knowledge has explicit and tacit dimensions. Complex adaptive systems science views knowledge simultaneously as a thing and a flow, constructed as well as in constant flux. The Cynefin framework is one model to help our understanding of knowledge as a personal construct achieved through sense making. Specific knowledge aspects temporarily reside in either one of four domains - the known, knowable, complex or chaotic, but new knowledge can only be created by challenging the known by moving it in and looping it through the other domains. Medical knowledge is simultaneously explicit and implicit with certain aspects already well known and easily transferable, and others that are not yet fully known and must still be learned. At the same time certain knowledge aspects are predominantly concerned with content, whereas others deal with context. Though in clinical care we may operate predominately in one knowledge domain, we also will operate some of the time in the others. Medical knowledge is inherently uncertain, and we require a context-driven flexible approach to knowledge discovery and application, in clinical practice as well as in health service planning.

Rethinking general practice for the 21st century. The patient counts!

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, reforms to health care systems appear to interfere with the traditional (healer) role of the general practitioner, and are perceived to disrupt patient care and the therapeutic relationship. OBJECTIVE: To outline measures for the survival and future development of the discipline of general practice in Australia. DISCUSSION: In order to preserve longitudinal relationship centred care and high level primary care clinical expertise, health bureaucracies and general practice itself, must re-focus care on the individual and community, integrating new developments rather than allowing 'new ideas and system pressures' to continually distort functional general practice.