IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0284765.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of group model building in implementation research: A systematic review of the public health and healthcare literature

Author

Listed:
  • Weanne Myrrh Estrada-Magbanua
  • Terry T-K Huang
  • David W Lounsbury
  • Priscila Zito
  • Pulwasha Iftikhar
  • Nabila El-Bassel
  • Louisa Gilbert
  • Elwin Wu
  • Bruce Y Lee
  • Pedro Mateu-Gelabert
  • Nasim S. Sabounchi

Abstract

Background: Group model building is a process of engaging stakeholders in a participatory modeling process to elicit their perceptions of a problem and explore concepts regarding the origin, contributing factors, and potential solutions or interventions to a complex issue. Recently, it has emerged as a novel method for tackling complex, long-standing public health issues that traditional intervention models and frameworks cannot fully address. However, the extent to which group model building has resulted in the adoption of evidence-based practices, interventions, and policies for public health remains largely unstudied. The goal of this systematic review was to examine the public health and healthcare applications of GMB in the literature and outline how it has been used to foster implementation and dissemination of evidence-based interventions. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and other databases through August 2022 for studies related to public health or health care where GMB was cited as a main methodology. We did not eliminate studies based on language, location, or date of publication. Three reviewers independently extracted data on GMB session characteristics, model attributes, and dissemination formats and content. Results: Seventy-two studies were included in the final review. Majority of GMB activities were in the fields of nutrition (n = 19, 26.4%), health care administration (n = 15, 20.8%), and environmental health (n = 12, 16.7%), and were conducted in the United States (n = 29, 40.3%) and Australia (n = 7, 9.7%). Twenty-three (31.9%) studies reported that GMB influenced implementation through policy change, intervention development, and community action plans; less than a third reported dissemination of the model outside journal publication. GMB was reported to have increased insight, facilitated consensus, and fostered communication among stakeholders. Conclusions: GMB is associated with tangible benefits to participants, including increased community engagement and development of systems solutions. Transdisciplinary stakeholder involvement and more rigorous evaluation and dissemination of GMB activities are recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Weanne Myrrh Estrada-Magbanua & Terry T-K Huang & David W Lounsbury & Priscila Zito & Pulwasha Iftikhar & Nabila El-Bassel & Louisa Gilbert & Elwin Wu & Bruce Y Lee & Pedro Mateu-Gelabert & Nasim S. S, 2023. "Application of group model building in implementation research: A systematic review of the public health and healthcare literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-30, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0284765
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284765
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284765&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0284765?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P. Ansah & David B. Matchar & Victoria Koh & Lukas Schoenenberger, 2018. "Mapping the Dynamic Complexity of Chronic Disease Care in Singapore: Using Group Model Building in Knowledge Elicitation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(6), pages 759-775, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Winter, Vera & Thomsen, Mette Kjærgaard & Schreyögg, Jonas & Blankart, Katharina & Duminy, Lize & Schoenenberger, Lukas & Ansah, John P. & Matchar, David & Blankart, Carl Rudolf & Oppel, Eva & Jensen,, 2019. "Improving Service Provision - The Health Care Services' Perspective," SMR - Journal of Service Management Research, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 3(4), pages 163-183.
    2. John Pastor Ansah & Keith Low Sheng Hng & Salman Ahmad & Cheryl Goh, 2021. "Evaluating the impact of upstream and downstream interventions on chronic kidney disease and dialysis care: a simulation analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(1), pages 32-58, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0284765. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.