Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Dec 12;18(1):131.
doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0707-6.

Decision makers' experience of participatory dynamic simulation modelling: methods for public health policy

Louise Freebairn  1   2   3 , Jo-An Atkinson  4   5   6 , Paul M Kelly  7   4   8 , Geoff McDonnell  5 , Lucie Rychetnik  4   9
Affiliations

Decision makers' experience of participatory dynamic simulation modelling: methods for public health policy

Louise Freebairn et al. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. .

Abstract

Background: Systems science methods such as dynamic simulation modelling are well suited to address questions about public health policy as they consider the complexity, context and dynamic nature of system-wide behaviours. Advances in technology have led to increased accessibility and interest in systems methods to address complex health policy issues. However, the involvement of policy decision makers in health-related simulation model development has been lacking. Where end-users have been included, there has been limited examination of their experience of the participatory modelling process and their views about the utility of the findings. This paper reports the experience of end-user decision makers, including senior public health policy makers and health service providers, who participated in three participatory simulation modelling for health policy case studies (alcohol related harm, childhood obesity prevention, diabetes in pregnancy), and their perceptions of the value and efficacy of this method in an applied health sector context.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with end-user participants from three participatory simulation modelling case studies in Australian real-world policy settings. Interviewees were employees of government agencies with jurisdiction over policy and program decisions and were purposively selected to include perspectives at different stages of model development.

Results: The 'co-production' aspect of the participatory approach was highly valued. It was reported as an essential component of building understanding of the modelling process, and thus trust in the model and its outputs as a decision-support tool. The unique benefits of simulation modelling included its capacity to explore interactions of risk factors and combined interventions, and the impact of scaling up interventions. Participants also valued simulating new interventions prior to implementation in the real world, and the comprehensive mapping of evidence and its gaps to prioritise future research. The participatory aspect of simulation modelling was time and resource intensive and therefore most suited to high priority complex topics with contested options for intervening.

Conclusion: These findings highlight the value of a participatory approach to dynamic simulation modelling to support its utility in applied health policy settings.

Keywords: Alcohol; Childhood obesity; Decision support; Diabetes in pregnancy; Dynamic simulation modelling; Gestational diabetes; Hybrid modelling; Knowledge mobilisation; Multimethod modelling; Participatory modelling; Prevention policy; Public health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was reviewed and approved as low risk by the ACT Health Human Research Ethics Committee (ACTHLR.15.150) and the University of Notre Dame Human Research Ethics Committee (0151195).

All participants gave individual written consent, were assured of confidentiality, and were free to withdraw from the study at any stage.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors were involved in conceptualising, planning and implementation of at least one case study described in this manuscript. PK and part LF salary was provided by ACT Health, who also part-funded the ACT model development. No other conflicts of interest to declare.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Armstrong R, Pettman TL, Waters E. Shifting sands - from descriptions to solutions. Public Health. 2014;128(6):525–532. - PubMed
    1. Francois K, et al. Investigating knowledge translation gaps within a public health policy setting: A report to ACT Health. Canberra: Australian National University; 2014.
    1. Brownson R, et al. Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(2):164–172. - PubMed
    1. Banks G. ANU Public Lecture Series, presented by ANZSOG, 4 February. Canberra: Productivity commission; 2009. Evidence-based policy making: What is it? How do we get it?
    1. O'Donoughue Jenkins L, et al. Evaluating and using observational evidence: the contrasting views of policy makers and epidemiologists. Front Public Health. 2016;4:267. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources