Healthcare Reform: The Need for a Complex Adaptive Systems Approach

  • Joachim P. SturmbergEmail author
  • Di M. O’Halloran
  • Carmel M. Martin


The notion of health care, and in particular primary health care, being a public good was strongly expressed in the Declaration of Alma-Ata in 1978 [ 1 ] .


Health System Simple Rule Health Workforce Complex Adaptive System Health Experience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    WHO. Declaration of Alma-Ata. International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata, USSR, 6-12 September 1978. Geneva: World Health Organisation1978.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lakoff G, Johnsen M. Metaphors we live by. London: The University of Chicago Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Annas GJ. Reframing the debate on health care reform by replacing our metaphors. N Engl J Med. 1995; 332(11):745–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moynihan R. Key opinion leaders: independent experts or drug representatives in disguise? Br Med J. 2008;336(7658):1402–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Astra Zeneca. Patient groups. Astra Zeneca International; [cited 2012 05-Jan-2012].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mintzes B. Should patient groups accept money from drug companies? No. Br Med J. 2007;334(7600):935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herxheimer A. Relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and patients’ organisations. Br Med J. 2003;326(7400):1208–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ball D, Tisocki K, Herxheimer A. Advertising and disclosure of funding on patient organisation websites: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2006;6(1):201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kent A. Should patient groups accept money from drug companies? Yes. Br Med J. 2007;334(7600):934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donohue JM, Cevasco M, Rosenthal MB. A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(7):673–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heylighen F. Complexity and Self-organization. In: Bates MJ, Maack MN, editors. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2008.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gell-Mann M. Complex adaptive systems. In: Cowan GA, Pines D, Meltzer D, editors. Complexity: metaphors, models, and reality, Santa Fe Institute studies in the sciences of complexity, Proc Vol XIX. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1994. p. 17–45.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eisenhardt KM, Sull DN. Strategy as simple rules. Harv Bus Rev. 2001;79(1):107–16.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Capra F. The web of life. London: HarperCollins Publishers; 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dooley KJ. A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dynam Psych Life Sci. 1997;1(1):69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sturmberg JP. The personal nature of health. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(4):766–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sturmberg JP. The Foundations of Primary Care. Daring to be Different. Oxford San Francisco: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sturmberg JP, Martin CM, Moes M. Health at the centre of health systems reform—how philosophy can inform policy. Perspect Biol Med. 2010; 53(3):341–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Batalden P, Ogrinc G, Batalden M. From one to many. J Interprof Care. 2006;20(5):549–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    White K, Williams F, Greenberg B. The ecology of medical care. N Engl J Med. 1961;265(18):885–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Green L, Fryer G, Yawn B, Lanier D, Dovey S. The ecology of medical care revisited. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(26):2021–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Institute of Medicine. The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes—Workshop Series Summary2011: Available from:
  23. 23.
    Starfield B, Shi L. Policy relevant determinants of health: an international perspective. Health Policy. 2002;60(3):201–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Macinko J, Starfield B, Shi L. The Contribution of Primary Care Systems to Health Outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Countries, 1970–1998. Health Serv Res. 2003;38(3):831–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Starfield B, Is US. Health really the best in the world? J Am Med Assoc. 2000;284(4):483–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Macinko J, Starfield B, Shi L. Quantifying the health benefits of primary care physician supply in the United States. Int J Health Serv. [ 10.2190/3431-G6T7-37M8-P224]. 2007;37(1):111–26.
  27. 27.
    Gulliford MC. Availability of primary care doctors and population health in England: is there an association? J Public Health. 2002;24(4):252–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roetzheim RG, Pal N, Gonzalez EC, Ferrante JM, Van Durme DJ, Ayanian JZ, et al. The effects of physician supply on the early detection of colorectal cancer. J Fam Pract. 1999;48(11):850.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ferrante JMMD, Gonzalez ECMD, Pal NMPH, Roetzheim RGMDM. Effects of physician supply on early detection of breast cancer. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2000;13(6):408–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Campbell RJ, Ramirez AM, Perez K, Roetzheim RG. Cervical cancer rates and the supply of primary care physicians in Florida. Fam Med. 2003;35(1):60–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roetzheim RG, Pal N, Van Durme DJ, Wathington D, Ferrante JM, Gonzalez EC, et al. Increasing supplies of dermatologists and family physicians are associated with earlier stage of melanoma detection. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;43(2):211–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Skinner JS, Staiger DO, Fisher ES. Is technological change in medicine always worth it? The case of acute myocardial infarction. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(2):w34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Benson H, Epstein M. The Placebo Effect. A Neglected Asset in the Care of Patients. JAMA. 1975;232:1225–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stange KC, Ferrer RL. The paradox of primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(4):293–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rosenberg CE. The tyranny of diagnosis: specific entities and individual experience. Milbank Q. 2002;80(2):237–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McWhinney IR. The Importance of being different. William Pickles Lecture 1996. Br J Gen Pract. 1996; 46(7):433–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hjortdahl P. Continuity of care: general practitioners’ knowledge about, and sense of responsibility toward their patients. Fam Pract. 1992;9(1):3–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fugelli P. Trust—in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(468):575–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Freeman G, Olesen F, Hjortdahl P. Continuity of care: an essential element of modern general practice? Fam Pract. 2003;20(6):623–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hjortdahl P, Lærum E. Continuity of care in general practice: effect on patient satisfaction. Br Med J. 1992;304:1287–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hjortdahl P. The influence of general practitioners’ knowledge about their patients on the clinical decision-making process. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1992;10:290–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sturmberg JP, Schattner P. Personal doctoring. Its impact on continuity of care as measured by the comprehensiveness of care score. Aust Fam Physician. 2001;30(5):513–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Saultz JW, Lochner J. Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: a critical review. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(2):159–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Guthrie B, Saultz JW, Freeman GK, Haggerty JL. Continuity of care matters. Br Med J. 2008; 337(aug07_1):a867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Freeman G, Hughes J. Continuity of care and the patient experience. London: The Kings’s Fund; 2010.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sweeney K, Gray D. Patients who do not receive continuity of care from their general practitioner—are they a vulnerable group? Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45:133–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, Wells K, Rogers WH, Berry SD, et al. Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. J Am Med Assoc. 1989; 262(7):907–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fortin M, Dionne J, Pinho G, Gignac J, Almirall J, Lapointe L. Randomized controlled trials: do they have external validity for patients with multiple comorbidities? Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(2):104–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Greenfield S, Nelson E, Zubkoff M, Manning W, Rogers W, Kravitz R, et al. Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. J Am Med Assoc. 1992;267(12):1624–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Greenfield S, Rogers W, Mangotich M, Carney M, Tarlov A. Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialties. J Am Med Assoc. 1995;274(18):1436–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Guadagnoli E, Hauptman P, Ayanian J, Pashos C, McNeil B, Cleary P. Variation in the use of cardiac procedures after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(9):573–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. Tracking the care of patients with severe chronic illness: Copyright 2008 The Trustees of Dartmouth College; 2008.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tuijn SM, Robben PBM, Janssens FJG, van den Bergh H. Evaluating instruments for regulation of health care in the Netherlands. J Evaluat Clin Pract. 2011:no-no.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Doran T, Campbell S, Fullwood C, Kontopantelis E, Roland M. Performance of small general practices under the UK’s quality and outcomes framework. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(578):e335–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    AHRQ. Value-Based Payments2012: Available from:
  56. 56.
    Jarousse LA. Value-based purchasing and bundled payments. Hosp Health Netw. 2011;85(5):6. following 32, 2.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cashin C. United Kingdom: Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). 2011 [cited 2012 February 26th]; Available from:
  58. 58.
    Kjellstrand CM, Kovithavongs C, Szabo E. On the success, cost and efficiency of modern medicine: an international comparison. J Intern Med. 1998; 243(1): 3–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Weinberger M, Kirkman M, Samsa G, Cowper P, Shortliffe E, Simel D, et al. The relationship between glycemic control and health-related quality of life in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Med Care. 1994;32(12):1173–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nicolucci A, Carinci F, Ciampi A. On behalf of the SID-AMD Italian Study Group for the Implementation of the St. Vincent Declaration. Stratifying patients at risk of diabetes complications: an integrated look at clinical, socioeconomic, and care-related factors. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(9):1439–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bauer A. “Die Medicin ist eine sociale Wissenschaft”—Rudolf Virchow (1821–1902) als Pathologe, Politiker und Publizist. Medicine—Bibliothek—Information. 2005;5(1):16–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim P. Sturmberg
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Di M. O’Halloran
    • 3
  • Carmel M. Martin
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of General PracticeMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.The Newcastle University, NewcastleWamberalAustralia
  3. 3.Department of General PracticeGlenorieAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Public Health and Primary CareTrinity College, Dublin, College GreenDublin D2Ireland

Personalised recommendations