Complexity of the Social Determinant
The social determinant of health, which is income and social protection, is s fundamentally multidimensional. Because they are reductionist, traditional methods often do not do enough to fix health disparities caused by these factors. By only focusing on certain aspects, like behaviors or healthcare provision, traditional models do not take into account how social determinants are linked and have many aspects (Islam, 2019). As a result, they keep disparities going instead of fixing them. Instability in income and a lack of social protections are linked to bad health outcomes in a cycle, but linear measures only address symptoms and not causes. In the same way, welfare benefits that do not include skill-building or community growth do not help people become self-sufficient. Instead, they put people under constant stress, which is bad for their health. Fragmented decision-making wastes time and money trying to solve problems that are all linked.
Systems thinking, on the other hand, helps people understand how complicated things are by mapping out many-sided problems to find points of high leverage for action. Tracing barriers to financial access and cumulative stress loads reveals policy, program, and relationship opportunities to ease pressures that make things worse systematically. When job paths lead to higher incomes, barrier-free healthcare access, and health literacy support work together, they can break negative cycles that exacerbate problems. Human needs are the same for everyone, so setting priorities together that focus on health fairness requires coordinated efforts from different areas. Achieving long-lasting wins is possible by removing obstacles to opportunities. Systems models emphasize targeted investments in access, freedom, and social cohesiveness to eradicate inequality by linking higher capacities with lower risks at the individual and group levels.
Rationale for Systems Thinking
According to Morgan et al. (2023), the best way to look at the social drivers of health is through a systems-thinking approach. Systems thinking is increasingly being used as an approach to deal with those SDH struggles more effectively. This can demonstrate how various socioeconomic factors impact community health and how these factors impact one another. Systems thinking offers conceptual models that show how health results are dynamically linked to things like wealth, social protection, healthcare access, transportation, nutrition, and other social determinants. This is different from reductionist frameworks that focus on isolating variables. In social systems, interactions and loops that go both ways create new traits that aren’t clear when parts are looked at separately.
For instance, it can be difficult to make ends meet financially when illness prevents one from working and limited access hinders obtaining healthcare. Health care and insurance cost more when you lose your job, which makes it harder for people to get them. This makes a cycle where things keep getting worse. Systems modelling can see these loops and strings of causal links that traditional linear analysis cannot. By looking at things like synergies, ripple effects, and unintended outcomes, systems thinking helps us fully understand the social and structural factors that impact public health. These insights are more than just numbers; they show places with a lot of influence and weak spots where policy or program changes could really make a difference. To make unified plans that can effectively and permanently enhance social situations, it is important to know what the community is like and what the problems are. For financial protection, service access, and public health, this will be a good thing.
Strengths and Benefits of Systems Thinking
When social and economic problems cause differences in health, a systems thinking approach can help us figure out what those differences are and how they are connected. Visual mapping shows how financial security and access to health care are connected to systems like housing, transportation, and jobs that are close by. Indirect but strong leverage points for improving equity are found this way (ALDERWICK & GOTTLIEB, 2019). Systems tools show how one action can have results that have other actions. For example, policies that reduce poverty may lead to more people using healthcare. Smarter actions are encouraged by modeling complex dynamics. In the end, systems methods lead to integrated solutions that take into account the socioeconomic factors that make access less fair.
Participatory methods that include a range of voices make sure that systems models and policies reflect views from people who live and work in the area. Getting affected groups involved leads to solutions that are culturally aware and fit the area. Working together across fields improves learning across disciplines and the creation of coordinated interventions (Haagh & Rohregger, 2019). For example, programs that help underserved groups figure out how to use health services could be shaped by partnerships with financial counselors. When people understand shared systems, their mental models and behaviors are in sync. Overall, inclusive systems thinking lets people work together to make solutions that take into account a wide range of situations.
Systems thinking’s main strength is that it encourages iterative methods that work well for making policies that change over time. On the other hand, systems understand that complicated issues change over time, unlike linear models. It is possible to respond better because of built-in feedback loops that let you think again and change course as needed. For systems, simulation tools are helpful because they help people think of problems that might happen before they do. So, flexible rules can be made that can be used when goals change, like when people’s incomes go up and down or when they become eligible for social support. In short, systems thinking lets everyone work together to make and improve rules that deal with long-lasting problems that are linked and affect fair access.
Strengthening the Health System
Addressing social issues that affect health, like poverty, schooling, and the environment, requires people from different fields to work together and have a full understanding of the system. A systems view shows how health is linked to its social and economic surroundings for more complete answers. People can get the necessary care and make enough money to pay for it by connecting social aid programs with health services. Systems thinking also shows that helping poor groups with their social and economic problems can benefit the whole community. One example is making your home safer, which can have a multiplier effect and make it easier to deal with problems going on for a long time. Small investments can have a significant impact on society with this method.
Systems thought can help policymakers make good decisions about dealing with the social and economic factors affecting health. The choices people make about where to live, go to school, and work can significantly impact the health of a community. Make laws that deal with substantial issues like poverty. This will stop diseases from spreading and people from getting care. Along with policy research, systems modeling can help us understand how complicated society is. When you look at the system as a whole, you can see how policies that focus on certain parts, like food stamps or parental leave, have many positive effects on society, such as making it easier for people to get medical care.
Taking a systems approach to social variables lets healthcare systems get stronger by letting people work together to invest in them. Focusing on a single problem doesn’t always work when you think about how health determinants are connected. For example, making it easier for more people to get health insurance won’t help if problems like not having enough money, transportation, or knowledge about health care still exist. Systems thinking shows where multi-sectoral answers are needed based on how people live in groups. The system lets various groups of people work together to make coordinated changes that take important local factors into account. Utilizing a whole-person method encourages teamwork, makes the most of limited resources, and builds systems that work together for everyone’s benefit.
Engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
To use culturally sensitive systems thinking, people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups need to be involved in a real way. This means working together to create interventions using frameworks from Indigenous knowledge, figuring out complicated historical contexts, and making sure that the community drives involvement. It is very important to work closely with Elders, healers, culture brokers, and advice groups. Their knowledge and oversight make sure that planned projects are in line with self-identified needs, cultural norms, and practices. Consensus-building and respectful conversation help people feel more in control of their lives and lead to new ideas that are better for Indigenous people (Reddel et al., 2022). For systems-based solutions to be moral, useful, and effective, they need to include ways to include and value the voices of First Nations people as equal partners, not just as study subjects.
Innovative Policies and Initiatives
A systems thinking approach helps come up with new policies by looking at the many factors and feedback loops that keep socioeconomic health disparities going from a full-picture point of view. This encourages coordinated actions that go beyond separate government areas to help communities get better by stabilizing their finances, making it easier for them to find care, teaching them more about health, and removing barriers (Owusu-Addo et al., 2018). Computational mapping of the causes of inequality reveals policy levers that are not being used enough. This leads to innovative modifications based on social justice and equity principles that are not taken into account by approaches that remain unchanged.
It’s easier for everyone involved to work together to make smart policies that address health equity when people use systems thinking. When officials work with groups that are having social and economic problems, they learn important things that help them make better decisions. Interventions that are based on real-life events are more useful when they use participatory methods. Systems tools let partners from various fields work together and join their efforts (Genn, 2019). People can be more creative and agree on how to solve problems that touch many things when they brainstorm with other people. Lawmakers could work with transportation officials to fix issues that make it harder for people whose income changes often to get health care. Innovative policies that address the underlying socioeconomic barriers to healthcare access and social safety can be made possible through inclusive co-creation.
Lastly, systems thinking is flexible, which means it can be used to change programs that are not working and spread models that do. Systems models are able to easily move resources around and adjust methods to keep things fair as societal conditions and population needs change. The systems view does not try to lock down disadvantaged groups in rigid structures. Instead, it stays flexible and open, driven to improve communities through coordinated efforts in areas like health, economics, infrastructure, and freedom. It gives solid advice on how to make long-term investments in care and chance.
Recommendations for Implementation
Working groups should encourage collaboration across sectors and actively use systems thinking principles in policymaking in order to put key results into action. Joining forces with people from different fields, like health agencies, economic councils, infrastructure divisions, and community advocates, to form interdisciplinary task teams helps coordinate strategies that have positive effects on all parties (Rosemary Kennedy Chapin & Lewis, 2023). Expanding spending on public health training programs speeds up the sharing of information and makes it easier for professionals to use systems approaches consistently. Consulting experts in areas like health equity, data analytics, and implementation science can also help make standard processes more systems-oriented. Intervention effects should also be measured quantitatively and qualitatively through ongoing monitoring and independent review. Finalized policies can be tested in the field and further improved over time to make sure the processes work well before the whole system uses them. Adequate pilot testing helps change tactics as situations change or new problems arise, supporting flexible and long-lasting policies that deal with the underlying causes of health problems for underserved groups.
References
ALDERWICK, H., & GOTTLIEB, L. M. (2019). Meanings and Misunderstandings: A Social Determinants of Health Lexicon for Health Care Systems. The Milbank Quarterly, 97(2), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12390
Genn, H. (2019). Mitigating the Social Determinants of Health through Access to Justice Get access Arrow. Current Legal Problems. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuz003
Haagh, L., & Rohregger, B. (2019). Universal basic income policies and their potential for addressing health inequities: transformative approaches to a healthy, prosperous life for all. Iris.who.int. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/346040
Islam, M. M. (2019). Social determinants of health and related inequalities: Confusion and implications. Frontiers in Public Health, 7(11), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00011
Morgan, M. J., Stratford, E., Harpur, S., & Rowbotham, S. (2023). A Systems Thinking Approach for Community Health and Wellbeing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-023-09644-0
Owusu-Addo, E., Renzaho, A. M. N., & Smith, B. J. (2018). Cash transfers and the social determinants of health: a conceptual framework. Health Promotion International, 34(6), e106–e118. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/day079
Raghupathi, V., & Raghupathi, W. (2020). The influence of education on health: An empirical assessment of OECD countries for the period 1995–2015. Archives of Public Health, 78(1).
Reddel, T., Hand, K., & Lata, L. N. (2022). Influencing Social Policy on Families through Research in Australia. Family Dynamics over the Life Course, 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12224-8_14
Rosemary Kennedy Chapin, & Lewis, M. (2023). Social Policy for Effective Practice. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003273479
write