A Complexity Lens on the COVID-19 Pandemic

Viewing the global health system as a complex adaptive system - implications for research and practice

The global health system (GHS) is ill-equipped to deal with the increasing number of transnational challenges. The GHS needs reform to enhance global resilience to future risks to health. In this article we argue that the starting point for any reform must be conceptualizing and studying the GHS as a complex adaptive system (CAS) with a large and escalating number of interconnected global health actors that learn and adapt their behaviours in response to each other and changes in their environment. The GHS can be viewed as a multi-scalar, nested health system comprising all national health systems together with the global health architecture, in which behaviours are influenced by cross-scale interactions. However, current methods cannot adequately capture the dynamism or complexity of the GHS or quantify the effects of challenges or potential reform options. We provide an overview of a selection of systems thinking and complexity science methods available to researchers and highlight the numerous policy insights their application could yield.   We also discuss the challenges for researchers of applying these methods and for policy makers of digesting and acting upon them. We encourage application of a CAS approach to GHS research and policy making to help bolster resilience to future risks that transcend national boundaries and system scales.

Cross-sector decision landscape in response to COVID-19: A qualitative network mapping analysis of North Carolina decision-makers

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic response has demonstrated the interconnectedness of individuals, organizations, and other entities jointly contributing to the production of community health. This response has involved stakeholders from numerous sectors who have been faced with new decisions, objectives, and constraints. We examined the cross-sector organizational decision landscape that formed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in North Carolina.

Methods

We conducted virtual semi-structured interviews with 44 organizational decision-makers representing nine sectors in North Carolina between October 2020 and January 2021 to understand the decision-making landscape within the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. In line with a complexity/systems thinking lens, we defined the decision landscape as including decision-maker roles, key decisions, and interrelationships involved in producing community health. We used network mapping and conventional content analysis to analyze transcribed interviews, identifying relationships between stakeholders and synthesizing key themes.

Results

Decision-maker roles were characterized by underlying tensions between balancing organizational mission with employee/community health and navigating organizational vs. individual responsibility for reducing transmission. Decision-makers' roles informed their perspectives and goals, which influenced decision outcomes. Key decisions fell into several broad categories, including how to translate public health guidance into practice; when to institute, and subsequently loosen, public health restrictions; and how to address downstream social and economic impacts of public health restrictions. Lastly, given limited and changing information, as well as limited resources and expertise, the COVID-19 response required cross-sector collaboration, which was commonly coordinated by local health departments who had the most connections of all organization types in the resulting network map.

Conclusions

By documenting the local, cross-sector decision landscape that formed in response to COVID-19, we illuminate the impacts different organizations may have on information/misinformation, prevention behaviors, and, ultimately, health. Public health researchers and practitioners must understand, and work within, this complex decision landscape when responding to COVID-19 and future community health challenges.

Experiences and Lessons Learned from COVID-19 Pandemic Management in South Korea and the V4 Countries

In the first year and a half of the COVID-19 pandemic, South Korea suffered significantly less social and economic damage than the V4 countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) despite less stringent restrictive measures. In order to explore the causes of the phenomenon, we examined the public health policies and pandemic management of South Korea and the V4 countries and the social and economic outcomes of the measures. We identified the key factors that contributed to successful public health policies and pandemic management in South Korea by reviewing the international literature. Based on the analysis results, South Korea successfully managed the COVID-19 pandemic thanks to the appropriate combination of non-pharmaceutical measures and its advanced public health system. An important lesson for the V4 countries is that successful pandemic management requires a well-functioning surveillance system, a comprehensive testing strategy, an innovative contact tracing system, transparent government communication, and a coordinated public health system. In addition, to develop pandemic management capabilities and capacities in the V4 countries, continuous training of public health human resources, support for knowledge exchange, encouragement of research on communicable disease management, and collaboration with for-profit and non-governmental organizations are recommended.

COVID-19: an 'extraterrestrial' disease?

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 has been regarded as an exceptional disease. Control measures have exclusively focused on 'the virus', while failing to account for other biological and social factors that determine severe forms of the disease.

AIM

We argue that although COVID-19 was initially considered a new challenge, justifying extraordinary response measures, this situation has changed - and so should our response.

MAIN ARGUMENTS

We now know that COVID-19 shares many features of common infectious respiratory diseases, and can now ascertain that SARS-CoV-2 has not suddenly presented new problems. Instead, it has exposed and exacerbated existing problems in health systems and the underlying health of the population. COVID-19 is evidently not an 'extraterrestrial' disease. It is a complex zoonotic disease, and it needs to be managed as such, following long-proven principles of medicine and public health.

CONCLUSION

A complex disease cannot be solved through a simple, magic-bullet cure or vaccine. The heterogeneity of population profiles susceptible to developing a severe form of COVID-19 suggests the need to adopt varying, targeted measures that are able to address risk profiles in an appropriate way. The critical role of comorbidities in disease severity calls for short-term, virus-targeted interventions to be complemented with medium-term policies aimed at reducing the burden of comorbidities, as well as mitigating the risk of transition from infection to disease. Strategies required include upstream prevention, early treatment, and consolidation of the health system.

Building a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic

The current global systemic crisis reveals how globalised societies are unprepared to face a pandemic. Beyond the dramatic loss of human life, the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered widespread disturbances in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems in many countries across the world. Resilience describes the capacities of natural and human systems to prevent, react to and recover from shocks. Societal resilience to the current COVID-19 pandemic relates to the ability of societies in maintaining their core functions while minimising the impact of the pandemic and other societal effects. Drawing on the emerging evidence about resilience in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems, this paper delineates a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to COVID-19. Such an understanding provides the foundation for an integrated approach to build societal resilience to current and future pandemics.