Middle ear disease (otitis media) is endemic among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Australia and represents an important cause of hearing loss. The disease is the result of a mix of biological, environmental and host risk factors that interact in complex, non-linear ways along a dynamic continuum. As such, it is generally recognised that a holistic, systems approach is required to reverse the high rates of otitis media in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The objective of this paper is to examine the alignment between efforts designed to address otitis media in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Queensland, Australia and core concepts of systems thinking. This paper’s overall purpose is to identify which combination of activities, and at which level, hold the potential to facilitate systems changes to better support ear health among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
We began with a review of documents identified in consultation with stakeholders and an online search. In addition, key informants were invited to participate in an online survey and a face-to-face or phone interview. Qualitative interviews using a semi-structured interview guide were used to explore survey responses in more depth. We also undertook interviews at the community level to elicit a diverse range of views. Ideas, statements or activities reported in the documents and interviews as being performed under the Intervention Level Framework were identified using qualitative thematic and content analysis. A quantitative descriptive analysis was also undertaken, whereby data was extracted into an Excel spreadsheet and coded under the relevant strategic directions and performance indicators of the Framework. Subsequently, we coded activities against the five-level intervention framework developed by Malhi and colleagues, that is: 1) paradigm; 2) goals; 3) system structure; 4) feedback and delays; and 5) structural elements.
Overall, twenty documents were reviewed. We examined surveys and interviews with six key informants. Twenty-four individual and 3 group interviews were conducted across central and community level informants. One hundred and four items were coded from the 20 documents and 156 items from interview data. For both data sets, the majority of activities were coded at the structural elements level. The results suggested three key areas where further work is needed to drive sustained improvements: 1) build the governance structures needed for paradigm shift to achieve a multi-sectoral approach; 2) develop shared system level goals; 3) develop system-wide feedback processes.
Sustained progress in improving ear health within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children requires a holistic, system-wide approach. To advance such work, governance structures for multi-sectoral collaboration including the development of joint goals and monitoring and feedback are required. Intervening at these higher leverage points could have a profound effect on persistent public health issues.
Citation: Durham J, Schubert L, Vaughan L, Willis CD (2018) Using systems thinking and the Intervention Level Framework to analyse public health planning for complex problems: Otitis media in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. PLoS ONE 13(3): e0194275. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194275
Editor: Peter Thorne, University of Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
Received: September 14, 2016; Accepted: February 21, 2018; Published: March 21, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Durham et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: "Data is available at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/XG6Y4."
Funding: This study was partly funded by Children’s Health Queensland http://www.childrens.health.qld.gov.au/ (JD and LS). The funders approved the original study design, but played no role in data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Abbreviations: COAG, Council of Australian Governments; CSOM, Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media; DEDKDC, Deadly ears, Deadly kids, Deadly Communities; ILF, Interventions Level Framework; OM, Otitis Media; TM, Tympanic Membrane
Middle ear disease (otitis media) is endemic among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Australia. In many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, an episode of acute otitis media (AOM) is a catalyst for chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), a chronic discharge through a tympanic membrane perforation and a cause of hearing loss [1–3]. Among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations the prevalence of CSOM is over 4%, exceeding the World Health Organization’s threshold for a major public health problem -. In the worst affected communities, perforation of the tympanic membrane has been reported in more than 50% of children, higher than in any other part of the world . Hearing impairment due to otitis media (OM) is generally conductive in nature, mild to moderate in degree and may be fluctuating or persistent [3–5]and can have an enduring impact on quality of life  as well as education and future employment opportunities [1, 2, 7, 8].
The Australian Public Service Commission acknowledges that persistently high levels of OM in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children represents a “wicked” problem . “Wicked” problems are typically socially rather than technically complex, with no single solution and require multi-agency cooperation and coordination to achieve system-wide changes . See Box 1 for some of the main contributing biological, environmental and host factors that contribute to OM in this population.
Box 1. Biological, environmental and host factors that contribute to otitis media in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
Biological risk factors: Respiratory bacterial and viral pathogens enter the Eustachian tube from the nasopharynx to the middle ear, causing accumulation of fluid and perforated tympanic membrane [10, 11]
Environmental risk factors: season; respiratory viral infection; exposure to other children with otitis media; exposure to tobacco smoke; early introduction of infant formula; use of pacifier; overcrowding in houses; swimming in unclean water; poor access to adequate hygiene and sanitation [11–14]
Increasingly, systems thinking has been proposed as a way to understand and tackle complex public health issues such as obesity [17–19], tobacco control , antibiotic resistance , and the social determinants of health . Malhi and colleagues’ 5-intervention-level framework (ILF) is a tool based on systems thinking that can assist in analysing the potential effectiveness of policy and programme initiatives .
In this paper, as part of a larger evaluation, we use the ILF to evaluate activities conducted under the strategic Framework “Deadly Ears, Deadly Kids, Deadly Communities” (DEDKDC) (from this point on known as the “Framework”). The Framework was developed to address OM in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Queensland, Australia. To contextualise the paper, we begin by providing a brief description of the Framework, followed by a short introduction to the concepts of systems thinking.
The deadly ears deadly kids deadly communities Framework
In 2007, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations to “close the gap” on Indigenous disadvantage. In Queensland, this was reflected in the state Governments plan “Making tracks: a state-wide plan towards addressing the gap in health outcomes for Indigenous Queenslanders 2009–2013”. The Framework aligned with this state-wide plan, and aimed to reduce OM and its impacts in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children .
The development and implementation of the Framework was guided by an Interagency Steering Committee which consisted of representatives from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; Australian Hearing; Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing; Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health; Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing; Office of Hearing Services; Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Council; Queensland Government: Department of Education and Training; Queensland Government: Office of Early Childhood Education and Care; and Queensland Health. Committee members were involved in the development, implementation and monitoring of the Framework. Under the Framework, Queensland Health also managed the Deadly Ears programme, which provided support and training to service providers and mobile ear, nose and throat (ENT) services in a limited number of communities.
The Framework recognised that the persistently high levels of OM in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children was the result of a complex interaction of environmental and host, biological factors and the social determinants of health (refer to Box 1). As such, a variety of multi-sectoral activities at different levels of the system (e.g. central level policy-makers, service providers and local communities) were proposed. These activities were underpinned by five principles and assumptions, three goals and two strategic directions (Box 2). For each of the goals, measurable targets that aligned with the two strategic directions were articulated.
Principles and assumptions
- Evidenced-based practice and policy
- Community engagement in health promotion
- Access to primary health care
- Access to mainstream services
- A population-based approach
- Reduce the incidence and impact of Otitis Media and Conductive Hearing Loss in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children living in Queensland
- Improve the coordination and integration of culturally appropriate and evidence-base sustainable ear health services across the care continuum for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children living in Queensland
- Integrate ear health services into primary and public health care services/approaches to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child, maternal and family health
- Develop and enhance interagency services that support a culturally appropriate and evidence-based approach to the management of Otitis Media in the areas of:
- screening, surveillance and diagnosis
- treatment, care and support.
- Develop system enablers that support a culturally appropriate and evidence-based approach to the management of Otitis Media across the care continuum in the areas of:
- workforce development
- information and knowledge
Meadows, a key thinker in systems thinking, defines a system as:
A set of elements or parts that is coherently organized and interconnected in a pattern or structure that produces a characteristic set of behaviours, often classified as its “function” or “purpose””.
Systems thinking is an iterative process which takes a broad, integrated perspective examining the linkages and interactivities among the systems elements [25–30],,]. It involves looking at issues holistically, identifying interrelationships, patterns of change and the context in which they occur, rather than snapshots of change at a particular point in time [30–33]. Actors in the system are seen to be interrelated, each acting according to their individual strategies or routines while at the same time, acting and reacting to what others in the system are doing (for example, public servants, managers, local service providers, teachers, nurses, community leaders and intended programme recipients) [33, 34]. Partly because of this, changes in the system are non-linear, with small changes sometimes having a large effect, and large changes potentially having limited impact [20, 25, 32, 33]. Understanding leverage points within a system and monitoring feedback loops to understand how the system is working can help explain how shifts in one element of a system produce change in another element . Each system exists within, and interacts with, a hierarchy of systems. For example, within a health service there are several sub-systems, such as, clinical services, information systems, finance, and administration departments. Box 3 summarises the characteristics of systems thinking.
Box 3. Characteristics of systems thinking based on Meadows 
- Views a system as a set of distinct parts that act together to form something more complex
- Focuses on the whole, rather than the separate parts of a system
- Sets system level goals
- Identifies interrelationships and patterns of change over time
- Recognises the importance of feedback loops in providing information how the system is working
- Looks for leverage points where a small amount of change can cause a large change in the system
- Highlights the importance of context in which an action is taken to understand outcomes
- Identifies non-linear relationships
- Is purposeful, seeking to identify where to intervene in a system to influence system change
Utilising constructs of the ILF, the objective of this paper is to examine the alignment between efforts designed to address otitis media in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Queensland, Australia and core concepts of system thinking. The overall purpose is to identify potential strategies and levels of intervention to facilitate systems changes to better support ear health among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
The evaluation design uses qualitatively driven methodologies including document review and semi-structured interviews with key informants. This design enabled the triangulation of data from different sources to support a broader understanding of findings in context.
Mahli and colleagues’ ILF  draws on the work of Meadows’ 12 “places to intervene” in a system . The ILF has five mutually exclusive levels of intervention: 1) paradigm; 2) goals; 3) system structure; 4) feedback and delays; and 5) structural elements (refer to Table 1). It has been used to analyse activities contained in policy and strategic documents to improve food systems  and obesity  and has been shown to provide way of sorting activities in a reproducible manner against the five levels .
Review of the Framework documents
First, we reviewed the Framework document for background information in order to identify the underlying principles of the Framework itself, its goals, planned activities and what it attempted to achieve. Other documents were identified in discussions with stakeholders and through an online search. A matrix of available documents was developed, noting the publication title, type (e.g. annual report, evaluation), author, and year of publication. Retrieved documents included programme field reports, evaluations, annual reports, relevant state policies and procedures for the Framework’s time period (2009–2013). Broad national or state level policy or strategy documents that mentioned the Framework as part of an overall approach were excluded given our focus on activities undertaken as part of the Framework. In addition, documents that mentioned OM in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children but did not propose specific activities (e.g. in The Chief Health Officer’s Report for Queensland) were excluded (n = 7).
Three researchers (JD, LS and LV) read all of the documents. Ideas, statements or activities undertaken as part of the Framework were identified and catalogued in a matrix initially sorted against the relevant strategic directions and performance indicators in the Framework. To capture a broad picture of the types of activities against each level of system function, one author (JD), subsequently sorted the statements and compiled them into a preliminary list based on the ILF definitions. These were checked by a second researcher (LS) and where there were differences, the documents were reviewed again to seek clarification. Following Malhi et al similar ideas were consolidated and grouped together to reduce redundancy .
Action statements that related to field trip reports, needs analysis, evaluations, development of an ear, nose and throat (ENT) database, and presentations were coded as feedback. Where there was insufficient detail in the available documents to determine the number of times an action had occurred (e.g. the use of specific equipment in community health centres) the statement was recorded once. This means that some activities may be underreported in our analysis. Further, as our focus was on activities, we did not code results. For example, we did not include statements such as “enhanced availability of quality post-ENT clinical and surgery data” in the coding.
Surveys and interviews
All steering committee members (n = 14) were invited to participate. A mix of individuals from two communities with knowledge and experience of the Framework were also invited to participate. These participants included community leaders, educators, healthcare workers and other service providers involved in work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families allowing us to gain a broad range of perspectives regarding implementation of the Framework.
Steering Committee members were invited to participate in an online survey and a face-to-face or phone interview. The survey utilized closed questions with the option of providing additional comments after each question. Survey questions related to alignment of the Framework goals with organisational goals, perceived cost/benefits of participation in the Steering Committee in terms of achieving organisational goals, Framework effectiveness, and the monitoring of activities performed under the auspices of the Framework.
Follow up interviews with Steering Committee members allowed for a more in-depth examination of issues raised in the survey. Interviews at the community level used a semi-structured interview guide with questions tailored to the different stakeholders. In general, questions pertained to community and organisational goals, perspectives of OM in the community and community participation in activities designed to prevent and treat OM and knowledge of the Framework. The use of a guide allowed us to focus on the topic while at the same time allowing participants to talk about the Framework (and/or ear and hearing health and services) in their own words, concentrating on the issues that they felt were important. This provided the interviewer with the flexibility to follow-up, clarify participant ideas and adapt interview questions as the study progressed and new insights were gained. The majority of interviews were conducted in person by a member of the research team with an additional researcher taking notes (JD, LS or LV). Interviews were recorded with informed consent.
Interviews were professionally transcribed, and reviewed by the interviewers (JD, LS, LV) prior to analysis to ensure accuracy. The data was entered into the qualitative software management tool Nvivo version 10 (QSR International) . All transcripts were read independently by three members of the evaluation team (JD, LS and LV) to identify initial codes. The data was then coded iteratively in Nvivo using qualitative thematic and content analysis, with the evaluators seeking and coding recurring patterns following a collaboratively agreed upon coding system based on the evaluation questions.
A quantitative descriptive analysis was also undertaken, whereby data was extracted into an Excel spreadsheet and coded under the relevant strategic directions and performance indicators of the Framework. Subsequently, activities were coded against the five-level intervention framework developed by Malhi and colleagues, as described previously .
Activities undertaken by interviewees or their organisations that were not directly related to activities under the Framework were not coded, nor were outcomes coded. Where participants mentioned the same activity in an interview the statement was recorded once.
Full ethical approval was obtained from the Children’s Health Queensland, Hospital and Health Services Human Research Ethics Committee (ref: HREC/14/QRCH/113) and The University of Queensland’s Medical Research Ethics Committee (ref: 2014000963). All participants provided their written informed consent to participate in the study.
One hundred and four items were coded from twenty documents. The twenty documents were: the Framework (n = 1); annual reports (n = 7); a community-based survey (n = 1); an evaluation report (n = 1); field reports (n = 7); Memoranda of Understanding (n = 2); and model of care document (n = 1). Table 2 provides examples of the type of activities contained in the reviewed documents as coded under each of the five leverage points in the ILF.
Six out of fourteen Steering Committee members returned their completed survey forms and were interviewed. In addition, three interviews (one conducted with two participants) were held with Deadly Ears Programme staff members to discuss their sector work. At the community level, 18 individual interviews and 3 group interviews were undertaken. They included a government worker (n = 1), primary school classroom teachers (n = 5, including 1 special education teacher), senior school management (n = 4), a nursing director (n = 1), child health nurses (n = 2), a local council member (n = 1), community healthcare workers (n = 4), community child care workers (n = 5), local social workers (n = 2) and community elders (n = 2).
We coded 156 items in the interview data. Table 3 provides examples of the type of activities reported in interviews coded under the ILF leverage points. Fig 1 presents the relative distribution of activities coded under the ILF based on the document review and the qualitative interviews. It shows that for both data sets, the majority of activities were coded at the structural elements level (66%, n = 67 documents review and 60%, n = 93 in the interviews).
The remainder of this section presents the results of the documents review and the qualitative interviews under the five headings of the ILF.
Paradigm level results
The Framework was underpinned by five principles and assumptions (Box 2). It recognised the need for a holistic, multi-sectoral approach to improving ear health in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The principles however, largely related to public health and did not emphasise multi-sectoral collaboration (Box 2). This was also reflected in the annual reports which showed that most of the activities undertaken at this level reflected principles of evidence-based clinical practice.
As seen in Table 3, the interviews included more paradigm level statements than the document review did (n = 17 in interview data and 4 in the document review). Statements at this level were from Steering Committee or central level staff and broadly reflected the content contained in the reviewed documents (Table 3). Evidence-based policy and practice was most commonly mentioned at this level (59%, n = 10). The following interview extracts are illustrative of this:
[we are] very much working to that policy and evidence based Framework
..it also just reiterates best practice approaches for all the teachers so that it doesn’t matter if you have a classroom full of kids with conductive hearing loss or you have a classroom full of kids who don’t have any hearing loss, it’s actually still all going to make a difference to the kids’ learning and listening environments regardless.
Interviewees recognised the need for a multi-sectoral approach but very few (12%, n = 2) activities were coded at this level. Both inter-department and inter-agency collaboration was reported to be difficult to implement in practice. As one Steering Committee member reported, “we’ve not ever got to that stage” (C_006). Another person explained:
.. we’re still very much at work in our own little corners at the moment and it’s very hard, even for two inter-agencies, to work together. You know, it’s just really, really hard.
The reasons for limited multi-sectoral activities included lack of governance mechanisms and high-level leadership to facilitate this work. The following interview excerpt illustrate this point:
it needs someone [with] some clout and a chance of actually changing and mandating some of that work………there [also] needs to be better engagement and involvement that actually drives people making the commitment and seeing an integrated commitment rather than a–‘this is my bureaucratic responsibility, I’ll do that bit and hope to God the rest works’.
Other barriers included a lack of understanding of different department processes, funding constraints and differing priorities. Not having a shared language was also mentioned and something to be overcome by “building narrative, our story, why this is important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children” (W_006) and using new language, as one person explained:
.. they teach us a lot about their lingo and so that when we are delivering things to teachers it’s not coming from a health perspective, it’s coming from an education perspective and making sure that the language that we use is familiar. They use things, like, I would say, “Adjustments,” and they would say, “Differentiated instruction.” And yeah, we would say, “Acoustic environments,” they would say, “In-classroom listening.”
Goal level results
The Framework document described three health orientated goals (see Box 2). Progress against these goals was recorded in annual reports in the form of outputs (e.g. number of activities) with reports publically available via a website. No outcome data (i.e. data on the degree to which activities were having an effect on the target population’s practices) was available in the reviewed documents.
At the goal level statements were mainly made by Steering Committee members and participants working at the central level. Whereas the goals in the document review focused on health, during interviews, participants talked about the need for both health and multi-sectoral goals as the following quotes illustrate:
we’re trying to take a systematic approach rather than helping with the direct service-specific issue
So it’s just about having a coordinated approach
[we aim to] meet those really fundamental core areas of prevention, screenings, advanced diagnosis, treatments, support
So our long term goal is to really influence how other clinicians in mainstream services do their practice and do their business and so to be providing information into that research base
In four of the six interviews with Steering Committee members, the lack of shared Framework goals was reported as an impediment to multi-sector collaboration. As one Steering Committee member explained:
We don’t have joint goals or joint priorities that we could be working towards. Because essentially we are all working to the same outcome around close the gap and improving health outcomes for the population but it kind of, how we get there, or how we are going, it’s all different and at different paces, not necessarily in the same lane
Over time, Steering Committee meetings also shifted from being multi-sectoral, to individual sector specific meetings. Not all of the Committee members (n = 3) felt that this shift was useful however, recognising that talking together could act as an impetus for change:
I would like to see that at least once a year, maybe we all get together, because, just having those opportunities to talk to people, to get an idea of the systems and the barriers and realities of what people in other sectors…—when you actually sit there and get that opportunity to talk, your ideas are maybe modified
System structure level results
The document review resulted in 14 activities being coded at the system structure level. These included efforts to build collaborations across subsystems and partnerships, including through Memorandum of Understandings (MoU). Other activities coded at the system structure level included negotiating for multidisciplinary health care teams and liaising with education, allied health and public health. Clinical guidelines were developed and disseminated to clinicians but no information was available in the reviewed documents on how these guidelines were being applied in practice.
Analysis of the qualitative data resulted in 23 activities being coded at the system structure level. Of these, six stated the need for more strategic formal partnerships, rather than relying on ad-hoc, personal connections. One person explained:
we need to have a look at what we need to happen in order for our end goal of, you know, ears and hearing being improved and what are those really key activities that stem from that and who is the best person that we need to partner to get that activity completed in a sustainable and systematic way that’s effective, not ad hoc. …… we really need that really systematic approach, so you're looking at the systems rather than the people
Few participants felt that the Framework had contributed to developing cross-sectoral collaboration. A senior community representative working for an organisation where there was a MoU in place reported that:
Knowledge, feedback and delays results
In the document review, we coded 6% (n = 25) of activities as feedback. Almost all (n = 24) came from the annual reports and related to Steering Committee members’ activities conducted under the auspices of the Framework. Other feedback mechanisms included evaluation of processes such as the use of new instruments in clinical settings and the user’s self-reported confidence in applying these. Field trip reports, mainly undertaken by the Deadly Ears programme in the communities where it worked, were another form of feedback. Feedback in these reports were primarily qualitative, focussed on specific activities and were used to inform programme planning at the individual-community level. Other feedback included dissemination of information through meetings and presentations.
Information on the incidence of CSOM came from the Deadly Ears ENT clinics. This data indicated that the presentations of CSOM in both 0–4 and 4–14 year olds from 2009–13 had reduced, but it was not possible to assess reductions in the incidence of CSOM state-wide due to the lack of population level data.
In the interview data we coded 8 percent (n = 12) activities at the feedback level. Most of the reported activities related either to sharing information opportunistically or within specific teams (n = 5) and related to activities undertaken at the system element level as the following quotes illustrate:
.. someone in community—from the team, just say, for instance, notices that or comes with that—finds out that information that child health checks are not—the ear check isn’t complete or whatever. So that’s when that information can come back to meetings and then go to the sector guys, the maternal and health
[we had] a couple of posters which we did, implemented in that community. Then opportunistically we shared with a support agency and they said, “Oh, that would be really great, we've had lots of requests from our other services. It would be really good if we could flesh it out and make it more bigger, have some training attached to that.” And then we've brought it back to here, to the sector meeting, and it’s coincided with some other feedback that we've received at other opportunities at a sector level as well.
There was limited evidence however, of feedback being used strategically to the right place within the system to create change as the following interview excerpts help to highlight:
I don’t know that… (getting) the results of studies into the hands of the practitioners on the ground so that they can actually do it really well.
.. it’s not actually the community strategy stuff that’s going up to the Steering Committee
Getting feedback on changes in the incidence and prevalence of OM was reported to be nearly impossible due to the lack of a standardised, state-wide system:
Different data systems, different definitions, different processes, different reporting techniques, different denominators and numerators. It's meaningless
There was also limited feedback on how practitioners implemented evidence-based practice within the context of their day-to-day work. As one person explained:
They [evidence-based best practice] are spelt out in the clinical guidelines, but the systems that are in place don’t lend themselves for those clinical guidelines to be implemented easily
While near universal school based screening is not recommended as a preventative action, senior educations staff and teachers (n = 9) saw school screening as providing important feedback on individual children, according to one person:
The information that I am able to feed from those [bi-annual] screenings back to teachers around individual children who may be having some hearing loss at any particular point in time, or they might have a hearing loss in one ear, it allows the teacher to think strategically about how they might position that child in their classrooms.
Few of the respondents at the community level were aware of the activities undertaken as part of the Framework and just over half (n = 12) felt that they would like more feedback on overall Framework performance. None of the respondents at the community level reported being aware of the annual reports.
Structural elements level results
In the document review, the majority of the activities were coded at the level of structural elements (n = 67). Many of the activities (n = 27, 40%) at the structural level were intended to increase the technical capacity of teachers and primary healthcare providers through face-to-face and on-line training. Other activities at this level included social marketing; health promotion; workshops; providing clinical equipment (e.g. otoscope, tympanometer and audiometer) to health workers; and improving the acoustic classroom environment to support hearing-impaired students.
As in the document review, the majority of the activities reported in the interviews were coded at the level of structural elements (n = 93). Activities mentioned largely reflected those included in the document review and included social marketing; classroom acoustic modification; and training for teachers and health workers.
In this paper we applied the 5-level ILF developed by Malhi, et al.  to examine the alignment between strategies used to address OM in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children under the Framework and core concepts of systems thinking. Application of the ILF helped to identify three key areas where further work is needed to drive a sustained reduction in OM within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children: 1) building the governance structures needed for paradigm shift to achieve a multi-sectoral approach; 2) developing shared system level goals; 3) developing system-wide feedback processes. The ILF also helped us to identify that most activities were taking place at the system element level which, while necessary, is often the least effective part of the system to intervene for sustained change .
At the paradigm level, the Framework recognised the need for multi-sectoral action, yet the extent to which this was achieved was limited. This helps to illustrate that even where the need for multi-sectoral action is recognised, it can fail to take hold [38–40]. To facilitate multi-sectoral action interventions that specifically aim to change “the rules” of a system may be needed. This could include for example, redefining system boundaries to allow multi-sectoral work and developing the governance structures to support this change [24, 40]. The collection and reporting of information, implicit in multi-sector efforts can also act as an effective leverage point as long as information is presented in a compelling form and flows to the right place within the system [24, 40].
In any intervention, goal setting is important because it determines what gets done [27, 38]. The Framework goals were relatively narrow and to drive whole system change, goals need to be truly multi-sectoral and relevant to the entire system [22, 39–42]. An example of a whole system is: “To promote healthy environments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to grow and thrive”.
Feedback plays a central role in systems thinking and in enabling systems to achieve their goals [23, 29, 35]. Feedback loops can be balancing or reinforcing . For example, due to the infectious nature of OM, the higher the prevalence of OM in the community the higher the incidence of new cases is likely to be creating a reinforcing feedback loop . Balancing this feedback loop requires preventative efforts, early detection and initiation and completion of treatment. Activities conducted under the Framework however, while important, did not address the broader determinants of OM, making the balancing effect too small in comparison to the factors it was trying to counter, limiting the potential for sustained change [24, 40]. Furthermore, feedback did not reach key actors across the different elements of the system minimising the potential for these actors to take corrective actions. The focus on individual organisational level outputs also potentially undermined collaborative, multi-sectoral approach engagement and analysis [24, 31, 38, 40, 42].
The system element constituted the majority of activities, including, training health and education staff, providing ENT services and classroom acoustic modifications. This is the level at which activities are most likely to have a direct impact on individuals . While necessary, this is often a “weak” leverage point with changes often “washing out” as the system returns to the status quo [23, 25, 35, 41].
Implications for policy and practice and strategies to facilitate system change
A stronger understanding of systems thinking may assist policy makers, programme managers and practitioners to better grasp the complexities of OM in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Specifically, it can help to identify which combination of activities and at which level, hold the potential to contribute to wider system change. Table 4 outlines some potential strategies that organisations could utilise to facilitate system change.
This evaluation study has several limitations. Despite repeated efforts to reach Steering Committee members, the survey response rate (43%, n = 6) was low and some perspectives may not have been captured in the data. However, there was no disproportionate representation of absent perspectives from the Steering Committee members as all major sectors on the committee were among those that did respond. Another limitation of our evaluation is that the data set from which we extracted the interventions was based mainly on activities included in publically available annual reports, and as such, we may have missed some activities. In addition, while we tried to verify, to the extent possible within the scope of the evaluation, that the reported action had taken place, we were not able to confirm this with all activities. These limitations were potentially mitigated however through triangulation with other Framework documents and stakeholder interviews.
Sustained progress in improving ear health within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children requires a holistic, system-wide approach. To progress such work, governance structures for multi-sectoral collaboration including the development of joint goals and monitoring and feedback are required. Intervening at these higher leverage points could have a profound effect on persistent public health issues.
- 1. Coates HL, Morris PS, Leach AJ, Couzos S. Otitis media in Aboriginal children: Tackling a major health problem. The Medical Journal of Australia. 2002;177(4):177. pmid:12175319
- 2. Morris PS, Leach AJ, Halpin S, Mellon G, Gadil G, Wigger C, et al. An overview of acute otitis media in Australian Aboriginal children living in remote communities. Vaccine. 2007;25(13):2389–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.09.006. pmid:17030497
- 3. Morris PS, Leach AJ, Silberberg P, Mellon G, Wilson C, Hamilton E, et al. Otitis media in young Aboriginal children from remote communities in Northern and Central Australia: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Pediatr. 2005;5:27. Epub 2005/07/22. pmid:16033643.
- 4. Jervis-Bardy J, Sanchez L, Carney AS. Otitis media in Indigenous Australian children: review of epidemiology and risk factors. J Laryngol Otol. 2014;128 Suppl 1:S16–27. Epub 2013/12/24. pmid:24359614.
- 5. Queensland Government. Deadly Ears Deadly Kids Deadly Communities: 2009–2013. Making tracks to close the gap in ear health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Queensland. 2009.
- 6. Boruk M, Paul L, Yelena F, Rosenfeld RM. Caregiver well-being and child quality of life. Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery. 2007;136(2):159–68. pmid:17275533
- 7. Williams CJ, Jacobs AM. The impact of otitis media on cognitive and educational outcomes. Medical Journal of Australia. 2009;191(9 Suppl): pp. S69–72. pmid:19883361
- 8. World Health Organization. Chronic suppurative otitis media: Burden of illness and management options. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2004.
- 9. Australian Public Service Commission. Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Canberra Australian Public Service Commission, 2007.
- 10. Couzos S, Metcalf S, Murray RB. Systematic review of existing evidence and primary care guidelines on the management of otitis min Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. Canberra, ACT, Australia.: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, 2001.
- 11. Wiertsema SP, Leach AJ. Theories of otitis media pathogenesis, with a focus on Indigenous children. The Medical journal of Australia. 2009;191(9 Suppl):S50. pmid:19883357
- 12. Jacoby PA, Carville KS, Hall G, Riley TV, Bowman J, Leach AJ, et al. Crowding and other strong predictors of upper respiratory tract carriage of otitis media-related bacteria in Australian Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2011;30(6):480–5. Epub 2011/05/20. pmid:21593705.
- 13. Jacoby PA, Coates HL, Arumugaswamy A, Elsbury D, Stokes A, Monck R, et al. The effect of passive smoking on the risk of otitis media in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children in the Kalgoorlie-Boulder region of Western Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 2008;188(10):599–603. Epub 2008/05/20. pmid:18484936.
- 14. Reid JT, Trompf P. The health of Aboriginal Australia. Marickville, NSW: 1991.
- 15. Engel J, Anteunis L, Volovics A, Hendriks J, Marres E. Prevalence rates of otitis media with effusion from 0 to 2 years of age: healthy-born versus high-risk-born infants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 1999;47(3):243–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-5876(98)00185-2. pmid:10321779
- 16. Fried AJ, Bonilla FA. Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of primary antibody deficiencies and infections. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2009;22(3):396–414. pmid:19597006
- 17. Frood S, Johnston LM, Matteson CL, Finegood DT. Obesity, complexity, and the role of the health system. Current Obesity Reports. 2013;2(4):320–6. pmid:24273701
- 18. Johnston LM, Finegood DT. Cross-sector partnerships and public health: Challenges and opportunities for addressing obesity and noncommunicable diseases through engagement with the private sector. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;36:255–71. pmid:25581149
- 19. Kiranmala N, Das MK, Arora NK. Determinants of childhood obesity: need for a trans-sectoral convergent approach. Indian J Pediatr. 2013;80 Suppl 1:S38–47. Epub 2013/02/14. pmid:23404696.
- 20. National Cancer Institute. Greater than the sum: Systems thinking in tobacco control. Bethesda, MD, US: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institut, 2007 Contract No.: NIH Pub. No. 06–6085.
- 21. Tomson G, Vlad I. The need to look at antibiotic resistance from a health systems perspective. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. 2014;119(2):117–24. pmid:24673267
- 22. Carey G, Crammond B, Keast R. Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: how can efforts be improved? BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1087. pmid:25327969
- 23. Malhi L, Karanfil Ö, Merth T, Acheson M, Palmer A, Finegood DT. Places to intervene to make complex food systems more healthy, Green, fair, and affordable. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition. 2009;4(3–4):466–76. pmid:23173029
- 24. Meadows DH. Thinking in systems: a primer. Wright D, editor. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub; 2008.
- 25. Carey G, Malbon E, Carey N, Joyce A, Crammond B, Carey A. Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12).
- 26. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2009;43(3–4):267–76. pmid:19390961
- 27. Johnston LM, Matteson CL, Finegood DT. Systems science and obesity policy: a novel framework for analyzing and rethinking population-level planning. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(7):1270–8. Epub 2014/05/17. pmid:24832406.
- 28. de Savigny D, Adam TWHO. Systems Thinking for Health Systems Strengthening Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research,. Geneva Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization; 2009.
- 29. Marcus SE, Leischow SJ, Mabry PL, Clark PI. Lessons learned from the application of systems science to tobacco control at the National Cancer Institute. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100(7):1163–5. pmid:20530758
- 30. Best A, Greenhalgh T, Lewis S, Saul J, Carroll S, Bitz J. Large- System Transformation in Health Care: A Realist Review. New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 2012. p. 421.
- 31. Leischow SJ, Best A, Trochim WM, Clark PI, Gallagher RS, Marcus SE, et al. Systems thinking to improve the public's health. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2 Suppl):S196–203. Epub 2008/08/23. pmid:18619400.
- 32. Luke DA, Stamatakis KA. Systems science methods in public health: dynamics, networks, and agents. Annu Rev Public Health2012. p. 357–76. pmid:22224885
- 33. Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evidence and policy. 2010;6(2):145–60.
- 34. Pawson R. The science of evaluation: A realist manifesto. London: Sage 2013.
- 35. Meadows DH. Leverage Points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland, Vt: The Sustainability Institute; 1997 [cited 2015 31 August]. http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf.
- 36. QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data analysis software, 9th ed. QSR International Pty Ltd; 2010.
- 37. Meadows DH. The global citizen. Washington DC: Island Press; 1991.
- 38. Willis CD, Riley BL, Best A, Ongolo-Zogo P. Strengthening health systems through networks: the need for measurement and feedback. Health Policy and Planning. 2012;27(suppl 4):iv62–iv6. pmid:23014155
- 39. Greaves LJ, Bialystok LR. Health in All Policies—all talk and little action? Can J Public Health. 2011;102(6):407–9. Epub 2011/12/15. pmid:22164546.
- 40. Carey G, Crammond B. Systems change for the social determinants of health. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:662. pmid:26168785
- 41. Willis CD, Mitton C, Gordon J, Best A. System tools for system change. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2012;21(3):250. pmid:22129934
- 42. Rasanathan K, Damji N, Atsbeha T, Brune Drisse M-N, Davis A, Dora C, et al. Ensuring multisectoral action on the determinants of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health in the post-2015 era. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2015;351. pmid:26371220