IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i10p3457-d358628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community Group Model Building as a Method for Engaging Participants and Mobilising Action in Public Health

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Gerritsen

    (School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand)

  • Sophia Harré

    (School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand)

  • David Rees

    (Synergia Consulting Ltd, Auckland 1011, New Zealand)

  • Ana Renker-Darby

    (School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand)

  • Ann E. Bartos

    (School of Environment, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand)

  • Wilma E. Waterlander

    (Department of Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, 1105 Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Boyd Swinburn

    (School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand)

Abstract

Group model building (GMB) is a qualitative method aimed at engaging stakeholders to collectively consider the causes of complex problems. Tackling inequities in community nutrition is one such complex problem, as the causes are driven by a variety of interactions between individual factors, social structures, local environments and the global food system. This methods paper describes a GMB process that utilises three system mapping tools in a study with members of a multicultural, low-income community to explore declining fruit and vegetable intake in children. The tools were: (1) graphs over time, which captures the community’s understanding of an issue; (2) cognitive mapping, which enables participants to think systemically about the causes and consequences of the issue; (3) causal loop diagrams, which describe feedback loops that reinforce the issue and identify potential actions. Cognitive mapping, a tool not usually associated with GMB, was added to the research process to support the gradual development of participants’ thinking and develops the skills needed to tackle an issue from a systems perspective. We evaluate the benefits and impact of these three tools, particularly in engaging participants and increasing understanding of systems thinking in order to develop and mobilise action. The tools could be adapted for use in other community-based research projects. Key learnings were the value of genuine partnership with a local organisation for longevity of the project, recruitment of key decisionmakers from the community early in the process, and allowing time to create sustainable change.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Gerritsen & Sophia Harré & David Rees & Ana Renker-Darby & Ann E. Bartos & Wilma E. Waterlander & Boyd Swinburn, 2020. "Community Group Model Building as a Method for Engaging Participants and Mobilising Action in Public Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3457-:d:358628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3457/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3457/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D F Andersen & J A M Vennix & G P Richardson & E A J A Rouwette, 2007. "Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 691-694, May.
    2. Sterman, John., 1994. "Learning in and about complex systems," Working papers 3660-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    3. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    4. John D. Sterman, 1989. "Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 321-339, March.
    5. Peter S. Hovmand & David F. Andersen & Etiënne Rouwette & George P. Richardson & Krista Rux & Annaliese Calhoun, 2012. "Group Model‐Building ‘Scripts’ as a Collaborative Planning Tool," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 179-193, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pippa McKelvie-Sebileau & David Rees & David Tipene-Leach & Erica D’Souza & Boyd Swinburn & Sarah Gerritsen, 2022. "Community Co-Design of Regional Actions for Children’s Nutritional Health Combining Indigenous Knowledge and Systems Thinking," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Wilma E. Waterlander & Angie Luna Pinzon & Arnoud Verhoeff & Karen den Hertog & Teatske Altenburg & Coosje Dijkstra & Jutka Halberstadt & Roel Hermans & Carry Renders & Jacob Seidell & Amika Singh & M, 2020. "A System Dynamics and Participatory Action Research Approach to Promote Healthy Living and a Healthy Weight among 10–14-Year-Old Adolescents in Amsterdam: The LIKE Programme," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Monica Bensberg & Andrew Joyce & Erin Wilson, 2021. "Building a Prevention System: Infrastructure to Strengthen Health Promotion Outcomes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Kathya Lorena Cordova-Pozo & Hubert P. L. M. Korzilius & Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette & Gabriela Píriz & Rolando Herrera-Gutierrez & Graciela Cordova-Pozo & Miguel Orozco, 2021. "Using Systems Dynamics for Capturing the Multicausality of Factors Affecting Health System Capacity in Latin America while Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-19, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    2. Oliva, Rogelio, 2003. "Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(3), pages 552-568, December.
    3. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    4. Florian Kapmeier, 2020. "Reflections on developing a simulation model on sustainable and healthy diets for decision makers: Comment on the paper by Kopainsky," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 928-935, November.
    5. Gibson, Faison P., 2000. "Feedback Delays: How Can Decision Makers Learn Not to Buy a New Car Every Time the Garage Is Empty?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 141-166, September.
    6. Lee, Yun-Huei & Wang, Kung-Jeng, 2012. "Performance impact of new product development processes for distinct scenarios under different supplier–manufacturer relationships," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 82(11), pages 2096-2108.
    7. Yang, Y. & Lin, J. & Liu, G. & Zhou, L., 2021. "The behavioural causes of bullwhip effect in supply chains: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    8. Nicholas C. Georgantzas & Evangelos G. Katsamakas, 2008. "Information systems research with system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 24(3), pages 247-264, September.
    9. Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Richard C. Larson, 2018. "SD meets OR: a new synergy to address policy problems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 327-353, January.
    10. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Leyer, Michael, 2019. "How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1044-1055.
    11. Langley, Paul A. & Morecroft, John D. W., 2004. "Performance and learning in a simulation of oil industry dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(3), pages 715-732, June.
    12. David C. Lane & Birgit Kopainsky & David C. Lane, 2017. "‘Behavioural System Dynamics’: A Very Tentative and Slightly Sceptical Map of the Territory," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 414-423, July.
    13. Gogi, Anastasia & Tako, Antuela A. & Robinson, Stewart, 2016. "An experimental investigation into the role of simulation models in generating insights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 931-944.
    14. Repenning, Nelson P. (Nelson Peter), 1998. "The transition problem in product development," Working papers WP 4036-98., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    15. Atkins, Paul W. B. & Wood, Robert E. & Rutgers, Philip J., 2002. "The effects of feedback format on dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 587-604, July.
    16. Federico Cosenz & Guido Noto, 2016. "Applying System Dynamics Modelling to Strategic Management: A Literature Review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 703-741, November.
    17. Lauren R. McBurnett & Margaret M. Hinrichs & Thomas P. Seager & Susan Spierre Clark, 2018. "Simulation Gaming Can Strengthen Experiential Education in Complex Infrastructure Systems," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(6), pages 620-641, December.
    18. Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike & Strohhecker, Jürgen, 2017. "Strategy map concepts in a balanced scorecard cockpit improve performanceAuthor-Name: Hu, Bo," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 664-676.
    19. Edward G. Anderson & David R. Keith & Jose Lopez, 2023. "Opportunities for system dynamics research in operations management for public policy," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(6), pages 1895-1920, June.
    20. Howick, Susan, 2005. "Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 239-250, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3457-:d:358628. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.