IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

From complexity to reality: Providing useful frameworks for defining systems of care

Listed author(s):
  • Levison-Johnson, Jody
  • Wenz-Gross, Melodie
Registered author(s):

    Because systems of care are not uniform across communities, there is a need to better document the process of system development, define the complexity, and describe the development of the structures, processes, and relationships within communities engaged in system transformation. By doing so, we begin to identify the necessary and sufficient components that, at minimum, move us from usual care within a naturally occurring system to a true system of care. Further, by documenting and measuring the degree to which key components are operating, we may be able to identify the most successful strategies in creating system reform. The theory of change and logic model offer a useful framework for communities to begin the adaptive work necessary to effect true transformation. Using the experience of two system of care communities, this new definition and the utility of a theory of change and logic model framework for defining local system transformation efforts will be discussed. Implications for the field, including the need to further examine the natural progression of systems change and to create quantifiable measures of transformation, will be raised as new challenges for the evolving system of care movement.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Evaluation and Program Planning.

    Volume (Year): 33 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 1 (February)
    Pages: 56-58

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:1:p:56-58
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:1:p:56-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.