Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T16:51:27.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applying systems theory to global mental health

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024

Mark J. D. Jordans Open the ORCID record for Mark J. D. Jordans [Opens in a new window]
Mark J. D. Jordans*
Affiliation:
Amsterdam Institute of Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands Center for Global Mental Health, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK Research and Development Department, War Child Alliance, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: Mark J. D. Jordans; Email:mark.jordans@kcl.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years the evidence base for psychological interventions in low- and -middle-income countries (LMIC) has rapidly accrued, demonstrating that task-shifting models result in desired outcomes. Next, it is important to look at how this evidence translates into practice. In doing so, this paper argues that the field of global mental health might benefit from applying a system theory or system science perspective. Systems thinking aims to understand how different components are connected and interdependent within a larger emergent entity. At present much of the research efforts into psychological interventions in LMIC are focusing on single interventions, with little focus on how these interventions sit in, or influence, a larger system. Adopting systems theory and system dynamics tools can help in; (i) better analyzing and understanding the key drivers of mental health problems and services, (ii) optimizing mental health services; and (iii) understanding the organization of people, institutions and resources required for rolling out and scaling-up mental health services. This paper reflects on some of these merits of a systems perspective, as well as provides some examples.

Topics structure

Topic(s)

InterventionsPolicy and systems

Subtopic(s)

Population strategiesServices integration

Keywords

global mental healthsystem sciencesystem theorylow- and middle-income countries

Information

Type
Perspective
Information
Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health , Volume 12 , 2025 , e2
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

The past decades of research in global mental health have roughly focused on demonstrating the burden of mental illness, the associated social determinants and the need for interventions, and subsequently demonstrating the effectiveness of psychological interventions adopting a task-shifting model. The evidence for these research questions has become widely accepted, while mental health problems are burgeoning globally. This paper argues that the research paradigm should shift towards the architecture of mental health services, especially in low- and -middle-income countries and low-resource settings. How are services organized? How to ensure that services are of adequate quality and scalable? How can mental health services embrace and address social determinants of mental health? These topics are addressed and advocated in several papers, including the Lancet Commission on Global Mental Health and Sustainable Development. The current paper argues that a system theory perspective can be beneficial in answering these questions, as it can help in better understanding the organization and optimization of mental health services. Systems science is the transdisciplinary study of systems, defined as interconnected and interdependent components that together make up the whole that is more than the sum of its parts. The utility of applying a systems lens can support future global mental health efforts by embracing and understanding the complexity of factors involved in sustainable mental health care, using systems dynamics tools like causal loop diagrams, process mapping and dynamic modelling to do so.

Introduction

Global mental health has unmistakably received increasing attention among policymakers, funders and researchers in recent years (Patel et al., Reference Patel, Saxena, Lund, Thornicroft, Baingana, Bolton, Chisholm, Collins, Cooper, Eaton, Hermann, Herzallah, Huang, Jordans, Kleinman, Medina Mora, Morgan, Niaz, Omigbodun, Prince, Rahman, Saraceno, Sarkar, De Silva, Ilina, Stein, Sunkel and Unutzer2018; WHO, 2022). Following evidence of the burden of disease attached to mental health conditions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) (Whiteford et al., Reference Whiteford, Degenhardt, Rehm, Baxter, Ferrari, Erskine, Charlson, Norman, Flaxman and Johns2013), much of that attention has gone to the large treatment gap for mental health conditions (Lancet Mental Health Group, 2007; Thornicroft et al., Reference Thornicroft, Chatterji, Evans-Lacko, Gruber, Sampson, Aguilar-Gaxiola, Al-Hamzawi, Alonso, Andrade, Borges, Bruffaearts, Bunting, Caldas-de-Almeida, Florescu, De Girolamo, Gureje, Haro, He, Hinkov, Karam, Kawakami, Lee, Navarro-Mateu, Piazza, Posada-Villa, Torres de Galvis and Kessler2017). This, in turn, has translated to advocating for task-shifting models of mental health care, with research largely demonstrating the effectiveness of such delivery models (Singla et al., Reference Singla, Kohrt, Murray, Anand, Chorpita and Patel2017). However, the vast majority of published efforts in global mental health are focusing on evaluating single interventions, and often devoid of how such services should be organized in real-world practice. Although this growing body of literature is a positive trend, such a singular approach to interventions is problematic for several reasons. First, mental health care cannot rely on single interventions delivered in isolation, because of comorbidity and the complex constellation of risk and protective factors at play in developing mental health conditions. Single interventions increase the risks for condition-specific approaches and risk forcing policymakers to make choices between mental health promotion, prevention or treatment intervention, rather than adopting a spectrum-of-care approach (Patel, Reference Patel2023; Patel et al., Reference Patel, Saxena, Lund, Thornicroft, Baingana, Bolton, Chisholm, Collins, Cooper, Eaton, Hermann, Herzallah, Huang, Jordans, Kleinman, Medina Mora, Morgan, Niaz, Omigbodun, Prince, Rahman, Saraceno, Sarkar, De Silva, Ilina, Stein, Sunkel and Unutzer2018). Second, condition- or program-specific approaches are not easily adopted in sector-wide systems, as it risks a mismatch with root causes and capacities across the system that have to be addressed synergistically (Windisch et al., Reference Windisch, Waiswa, Neuhann, Scheibe and de Savigny2011). Third, in humanitarian contexts, guidelines explicitly recommend mounting a comprehensive multi-levelled mental health and psychosocial support response (IASC, 2007). Yet, descriptions of multi-intervention approaches in practice or research are scarce (e.g. Jordans et al. (Reference Jordans, Pigott and Tol2016). Fourth, multiple combined interventions, or a system of care approach, may have a bigger impact than multiple single interventions because of potential synergistic effects. As much of the current global mental health research focuses on the evaluation of interventions as component parts or single psychological interventions, outcomes are primarily demonstrated on the level of the individual. This does not allow for evaluating the multiplicative effects when bringing together a number of component parts and contributing to population-level changes. Transdiagnostic approaches are important in addressing the issue of comorbidity but are not designed to have synergistic effects beyond those participating in the intervention. Finally, implementation of any intervention, or combination of interventions, will require the involvement and coordination of a set of actors, processes and organizations, especially if it is to yield sustained service provision. This is especially salient given the burgeoning evidence base for psychological interventions, yet little large-scale or national rollout of these in LMIC, indicating a need to focus on systems change to make widescale adoption possible.

To move beyond single-intervention thinking and to explore how best to organize implementation, the field of global mental health can benefit from engaging with systems theory and system science. A system is a group of interacting, interdependent elements that form a complex whole (Montuori, Reference Montuori2011), also captured by the famous adagio: ‘the whole is more than the sum of its parts’ – going back to Aristotle’s thinking. Systems theory emerged in the 1940’s as a counterpoint to the dominant form of scientific thinking then, namely reductionism wherein the whole is explained from the knowledge of its parts. Systems theory aims to provide a convergent way of understanding the world by acknowledging the way relationships and interactions between elements form the organization (of life). In doing so, system theory promotes going beyond often arbitrary disciplinary boundaries, where classical scientific approaches operate from a single disciplinary approach (Midgley and Rajagopalan, Reference Midgley and Rajagopalan2020). Global mental health research has leaned heavily on epidemiological and evaluative research that has aimed to isolate associations and effects. Of course, classical reductionist approaches of inquiry have great benefits, and have been crucial in the furthering of the global mental health agenda, but real-world benefits are impeded by the complexity problem, learning failures and implementation challenges (Adam and de Savigny, Reference Adam and de Savigny2012). Above all, this paper is therefore a plea to see how these perspectives can be simultaneously adopted – rather than antagonistic or opposing perspectives – to combine causal inference testing with more holistic approaches.

The original general systems theory (GST) stems from biology and describes how systems adapt to re-finding homeostasis or equilibrium (von Bertalanffy, Reference von Bertalanffy1968). This evolved in cybernetics, which entails for systems to evolve as a result of feedback, further evolving into complex systems that is characterized by many components interacting with each other to respond to the irreducible complexity of the changing nature of organizations, human behaviors or processes (Lai and Huili Lin, Reference Lai and Huili Lin2017). Following Von Bertalanffy’s GST many different iterations of systems theory have evolved, such as complex adaptive systems (CAS) which focuses on the system’s ability to learn to adapt to its changing elements and context and chaos theory (CT) which is centered around the principle that order emerges out of chaos (Cordon, Reference Cordon2013). It is difficult to have one definition of system theory, and I therefore use the generic dictionary-based definition ‘a regularly interacting and interdependent group of items forming a unified whole’. Non-exhaustive key characteristics of later systems thinking are; (1) emergence, in which the outcome of collective components cannot be produced by the individual components alone (i.e. totality is viewed as more than the sum of its parts); (2) interdependence and interconnectedness of component parts, meaning that changes to one part of the system can have ripple effects on other parts of the system; and (3) dynamism in that the system can adjust to, and learn from, the unpredictability of real world – a process that is captured by feedback loops. In short, it is about holistic thinking that embraces multiple component parts and the related complexity when understanding or addressing a challenge. In terms of (often interchangeable use of) system terminology, we will refer to systems thinking when referring to the approach that is overarching and stemming from distinct system theories (used to refer to,e.g. GST, CAS, and CT), and system science when referring to the research and research methodologies coming from system theories with a common goal understanding complexity (Sterman, Reference Sterman2002). Furthermore, in this paper, we limit the use of systems thinking to mental health care delivery, defined as a way of addressing mental health delivery challenges that recognize the multiplicity of elements interacting to impact an outcome – for example, improving population-level mental health – in a holistic way (Komashie et al., Reference Komashie, Hinrichs-Krapels and Clarkson2021). Ultimately with the objective of increasing the quality and efficiency of mental health care without the commensurate increase in resources (Clarkson et al., Reference Clarkson, Dean, Ward, Komashie and Bashford2018). In fact, early evidence seems to provide support for a systems approach to addressing health delivery challenges to lead to significant improvement in patient and service outcomes (Komashie et al., Reference Komashie, Hinrichs-Krapels and Clarkson2021).

System theory can be applied to diverse fields of inquiry. It has been proposed as a paradigm shift for health systems strengthening in LMICs (Adam and de Savigny, Reference Adam and de Savigny2012), for understanding global health governance (Hill, Reference Hill2011), or for organizing chronic care models (Martin and Sturmberg, Reference Martin and Sturmberg2009). Systems methodologies have long been applied to a wide range of public health problems, from tackling obesity to tobacco control (Carey et al., Reference Carey, Malbon, Carey, Joyce, Crammond and Carey2015). Useful overviews of tools and methods stemming from systems theory applied to the field of global health already exist (Peters, Reference Peters2014; Wilkinson et al., Reference Wilkinson, Goff, Rusoja, Hanson and Swanson2018). Yet a systematic review of case studies of adopting systems thinking in health practice reported few examples in LMIC, and not specifically to mental health (Wilkinson et al., Reference Wilkinson, Goff, Rusoja, Hanson and Swanson2018). At the same time, good examples of using systems thinking for global mental health have been published, following the WHO health system building blocks (Vallières et al., Reference Vallières, Elshazly, Sleiman, Abou Daher, a Bháird, Ceannt, Hyland and Ventevogel2022).

Application of systems science in global mental health

Many of the global mental health challenges, related to the organization of services, ensuring treatment coverage, and ensuring quality of mental health care, are complex problems that need models that help understand the underlying dynamics (Jordans and Kohrt, Reference Jordans and Kohrt2020; Patel, Reference Patel2023). Using a systems theory perspective allows for a common transdisciplinary language of science when developing solutions for these complex problems.

Why is it applicable?

In light of the mental health crisis globally, Patel et al. (Reference Patel, Saxena, Lund, Kohrt, Kieling, Sunkel, Kola, Chang, Charlson, O’Neill and Herrman2023) recommend a redesign of the architecture of mental health care to ensure a seamless continuum of care, which is integrated across health and other sectors, and addresses harmful social environments. Systems thinking and language can help onboarding different stakeholders to adopt a mental health focus and build in adaptiveness to the real-world context. Applying a systems lens avoids seeing mental health problems in isolation, and identifies a complex set of interactions and factors that need to be taken into account. Although at an individual clinical level, this can be taken into account by the clinician or case worker (Metzl and Hansen, Reference Metzl and Hansen2014), at a program level this more holistic system thinking needs to be purposively planned for and monitored. In doing so, a systems approach and methodologies can inform and support; (i) the selection, organization and delivery framework for interventions (implementation), and (ii) the evaluation design of more comprehensive mental health care programs (research). This approach is relevant to address what are also called ‘wicked’ or ‘complex’ problems related to mental health care, especially in low-resource settings, namely; fragmented or disjointed activities, a combination of multiple demands- and supply side barriers, need to operate at multiple socio-ecological levels, addressing multiple social factors related to mental health etc. (Trani et al., Reference Trani, Ballard, Bakhshi and Hovmand2016). Taking a singular approach of addressing one of these problems at a time in isolation is not likely going to improve the higher-order outcome of improved population-level mental health, and requires the holistic, non-linear and transdisciplinary approach that system thinking advocates.

Systems theory is applicable to global mental health efforts increasingly embracing the importance of social determinants of mental health (Lund, Reference Lund2023). A focus on social determinants is all about the multiple associations between issues such as poverty, migration, marginalization and abuse and the mental health status of people. When intervening using that perspective, one is bound to take on a dynamic and multiple-component approach. For example, with poverty being a major social determinant, a recent program aims to prevent adolescent depression and anxiety by combining neuro-psychosocial intervention mechanisms (such as peer support and self-regulation), with poverty reduction mechanisms (such as cash transfers for adolescents and caregivers) (Lund et al., Reference Lund, Jordans, Garman, Araya, Avendano, Bauer, Bahure, Dua, Eleftheriou and Evans-Lacko2023). In essence, structural socio-economic inequities cannot be changed without addressing the myriad components that act together in a complex system. Global mental health initiatives taking this approach can draw from a review that has synthesized the literature on the places to intervene in a system (i.e. leverage points) to address social determinants of health (Carey and Crammond, Reference Carey and Crammond2015).

Similarly, systems thinking can be useful given the paradigm shift towards more integration of mental health within other sectors. In humanitarian settings for integrating mental health and psychosocial support in nutrition, water and sanitation and protection activities (Tol et al., Reference Tol, Le, Harrison, Galappatti, Annan, Baingana, Betancourt, Bizouerne, Eaton and Engels2023), all of which can easily be understood as systems. Also for tackling the complexity that is involved in the much-advocated strategy for the integration of mental health into primary health care (WHO, 2016). In line with the application for health systems strengthening, it helps in framing barriers in terms of a pattern rather than a particular event, in placing responsibility for behaviors on internal actors and processes rather than external forces, and in believing that overcoming barriers requires understanding of context and relationships rather than on stand-alone solutions (Adam and de Savigny, Reference Adam and de Savigny2012).

Moreover, systems theory has been advocated as an alternative perspective to current scaling models that tend to follow a linear and predictable process that involves the replication of small-scale pilots to real-world roll-out (Paina and Peters, Reference Paina and Peters2012). Using systems theory, the authors argue, better reflects the complex and changing nature of (health) systems, and creates opportunities for better planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation approaches to scale up health services. With scaling being an explicit and urgent goal within the field of global mental health, applying complex systems phenomena may support that goal.

Incorporating the above points, a system science lens can also guide global mental health research efforts. In the field of public health, a systems science lens has long been adopted, though mostly as a post-hoc superimposed analytical perspective or using superficial or low-quality study designs (Carey et al., Reference Carey, Malbon, Carey, Joyce, Crammond and Carey2015). To date, as is overwhelmingly common in global mental health research and practice, interventions have been studied as separate and closed systems, which essentially means actively minimizing the interaction between the intervention and the environment. The next step is to implement and evaluate the (combined) interventions as an open system, wherein the different component parts interact, and respond to feedback. This means conducting research on how to optimize the services so that the best results can be obtained – especially salient given the scarcity of resources. This links to the system’s notion of ‘leverage points’, which are places within a complex system where a small change in one part can produce big changes in the whole (Carey and Crammond, Reference Carey and Crammond2015). An example leverage point for mental health care in LMIC is the adoption of demand-side strategies, as demonstrated by a review of reviews (Greene et al., Reference Greene, Huang, Giusto, Lovero, Stockton, Shelton, Dos Santos, Saúte and Wainberg2021). Moreover, systems science can support designing outcome studies, because it promotes a perspective that embraces complexity as opposed to isolating effect, for example by evaluating; (i) unintended effects and effects on life domains beyond improvement in individual mental health, and; (ii) the synergistic effects of a combination of interventions on population-level changes, that is, the sum of what parts contribute to a larger whole.

With evidence for the effectiveness of task-sharing approaches to psychological interventions in LMIC, the research agenda has increasingly highlighted the importance of implementation science, which is the study of methods and strategies that facilitate the uptake of evidence-based interventions into practice. Implementation science tries to answer how to successfully implement evidence-based interventions, so mostly characterized by intervention-level analyses. A systems science approach, as mentioned above, is a study that aims to understand and tackle complexity (dynamic interplay of multiple factors and components, operating at different levels), so mostly characterized by macro- or population-level analyses. Here again, I would plea for bridging these perspectives, wherein a combined implementation science and systems science approach has the potential for enhanced planning for and researching mental health programs – even if more evidence for that potential is needed (Whelan et al., Reference Whelan, Fraser, Bolton, Love, Strugnell, Boelsen-Robinson, Blake, Martin, Allender and Bell2023).

How is it applicable?

The above section aimed to outline why a systems perspective can be helpful in global mental health efforts. This translates to a few recommendations and examples on how it can be applied in practice (see also Box 1):

First, to better analyze and understand the key drivers of mental health problems and services, system dynamics tools and methods can be used and help to formulate starting points for intervening – as it allows for embracing substantial complexity and multi-level interactions. A recent study by Greene and colleagues provides a rich example of how a tool such as causal loop diagrams can be applied to better understand the relationship between barriers and facilitators of mental health services in LMIC (Greene et al., Reference Greene, Huang, Giusto, Lovero, Stockton, Shelton, Dos Santos, Saúte and Wainberg2021).

Second, to support the implementation of mental health services, systems theory notions of identifying leverage points (i.e. places in the system where a small change or intervention can have a large impact), and holism (i.e. thinking in terms of interrelated, interdependent components) can make for better mental health care. It helps identify how to improve the delivery and sustainability of mental health services. For example, Trani et al. (Reference Trani, Ballard, Bakhshi and Hovmand2016) employed community-based system dynamics, and group model building, to better understand factors that prevent people from accessing mental health services and thereby create a shared vision of how to overcome these barriers in Afghanistan. Equally, systems thinking can safeguard against unintended negative consequences, as it promotes monitoring and evaluation to assess the knock-on effects of an intervention – thereby looking beyond the individuals that an intervention is targeting. System thinking supports the organization and implementation of mental health care, for example, by using process mapping to illustrate the client journey to reveal bottlenecks and points of system failures. Moreover, it supports adopting an optimization lens, for example by mapping and using feedback loops to adapt a mental health care delivery framework. The integration of mental health into primary health care is a good example where systems dynamics tools such as actor mapping or client journeys can help understand the dynamic and complex interplay of people, institutions, and resources involved in delivering mental health services.

It is important to note that, as explained above, the conceptual boundary of the system’s approach employed in this paper is ‘mental health service delivery in low-resource settings’. This is of course a limited use of system theory. Other applications may equally be useful, for example, for the study of Global Mental Health as a field (Bemme and Kirmayer, Reference Bemme and Kirmayer2020) or for understanding global mental health governance (Hill, Reference Hill2011), or for tackling the complexity of mental health care being part of a network of systems (or system in systems) (Cordon, Reference Cordon2013). These are outside the scope of this paper but would merit further reflection.

Box 1: Case study

Below is an example of how systems thinking can be applied to both the implementation and research aspects of defining, evaluating and optimizing a mental health care delivery approach for children affected by armed conflict.

In terms of implementation, the humanitarian organization War Child has developed a care system consisting of multiple interventions that are interconnected in such a way that children and adolescents can follow a pathway of care, and wherein multiple stakeholders surrounding the child or adolescent are supported to mitigate the impact of adversity (Jordans et al., Reference Jordans, van den Broek, Brown, Coetzee, Ellermeijer, Hartog, Steen, Miller, Nickerson and Morina2018). This care system includes a largely non-verbal movement-based mental health promotion intervention (TeamUp) (Bleile et al., Reference Bleile, Koppenol-Gonzalez, Verreault, Abeling, Hofman, Vriend, Hasan and Jordans2021), a strategy to pro-actively detect children and adolescents in need of treatment (van den Broek et al., Reference van den Broek, Hegazi, Ghazal, Hamayel, Barrett, Kohrt and Jordans2023), a World Health Organization developed brief psychological treatment, Early Adolescents Skills for Emotion (EASE), for reducing severe emotional distress (Dawson et al., Reference Dawson, Watts, Carswell, Shehadeh, Jordans, Bryant, Miller, Malik, Brown and Servili2019). The caregivers are supported by a brief intervention (BeThere) that addresses their own distress as a result of adversity and daily stressors followed by a focus on increasing positive parenting strategies (Miller et al., Reference Miller, Chen, Koppenol-Gonzalez, Bakolis, Arnous, Tossyeh, El Hassan, Saleh, Saade, Nahas, Abboud, Jawad and Jordans2022), and families experiencing multiple stressors and more severe distress can subsequently be offered a whole-family mental health intervention (Stronger Together) (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Yousef, Bleile, Mansour, Barrett, Ghatasheh, Puffer, Mansour, Hayef, Kurdi, Ali, Tol, El-Khani, Calam, Hassan and Jordans2024). A similar approach is applied to improving the well-being and social-emotional competencies of teachers, through an intervention called CORE. The care system includes addressing stigmatization, as stigma functions as a barrier to mental health services and exacerbates mental health problems. And, in line with the social determinants perspective, it puts communities in the driving seat to address child protection risks and concerns, following an approach called Seeds. A systems perspective is applied in the organization of this pathway to care, through clearly articulated interdependencies between components and by adopting a transdisciplinary approach. This allows for client journeys wherein a child is supported through these interconnected components, wherein it can flow from receiving mental health promotion to treatment, wherein the child’s parents are supported, and their communities are involved in addressing barriers and risk factors.

Another defining characteristic of a systems approach is the ability of the system to be dynamic, referring to the ability to respond to feedback and real-world inputs. Applying this principle to the bespoke care system, we have incorporated a quality of care framework that consists of routinely collecting data on the service providers’ levels of competence and implementation fidelity, and participants’ intervention attendance (Jordans and Kohrt, Reference Jordans and Kohrt2020). This data allows for (real-time) data-driven adjustments to the implementation of the interventions, through training and supervision mechanisms, thereby aiming to optimize the quality and, in turn, outcomes of the services. In a recent study, we demonstrated that competency-driven training, making use of competency assessment data, improved the training outcomes significantly over standard training (Jordans et al., Reference Jordans, Steen, Koppenol-Gonzalez, El Masri, Coetzee, Chamate, Ghatasheh, Pedersen, Itani, El Chammay, Schafer and Kohrt2022).

In terms of research, we address the concept of holism, i.e. the whole as an emergent higher-order property of the interactions of the different component parts of a system (Lai and Huili Lin, Reference Lai and Huili Lin2017; Montuori, Reference Montuori2011). For example, does the above combination of interconnected interventions result in higher-order population-level improvements (such as improved quality of life and reduced prevalence rates), outcomes that can only be explained by the sum of its isolated parts. Furthermore, system dynamics methods, such as causal loop diagrams, dynamic modelling, process mapping, stock and flow diagrams, and stakeholder network analyses can be used to assess the drivers, functioning and outcomes of a system. For example, concerns the implementation of a digitalized personal learning intervention (Can’t Wait to Learn; Turner et al., Reference Turner, Taha, Ibrahim, Neijenhuijs, Hallak, Radford, Stubbé-Alberts, de Hoop, Jordans and Brown2022), which is part of the above care system to promote children’s learning outcomes. A system science approach was used to understand and adapt the system surrounding caregivers’ engagement in children’s learning. Group model building (GMB) is a methodology wherein participants generate a comprehensive understanding of a system and action ideas to solve the issue at hand. GMB workshops in refugee settlements in Uganda identified and addressed factors such as home-school communication, caregivers’ knowledge of school activities, attendance of school meetings and the language barrier between caregivers and school staff.

Conclusion

Systems theory aims to understand how different components are connected and interdependent within a larger emergent entity. This paper argues that systems thinking can help in the conceptualization of the next phase in the field of global mental health, specifically related to mental health care delivery. Previous phases of global mental health research have emphasized the importance of investing in mental health given the high burden of disease and treatment gap, and subsequently developed and tested task-shifting models for mental health care through a suite of psychological interventions. We now need to focus on how to bring these together in a coherent and well-functioning system. Systems theory characteristics of interconnectedness, dynamism, leverage points and emergence can provide guidance for the development and evaluation of such mental health care approach. Systems theory can also support scaling efforts, as it better reflects the complex context of real-world implementation context and the adjustments that need to be made as a result. Systems thinking can be applied to maximize the impact of ongoing efforts and trends in the field of global mental health.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Brandon Kohrt, Wietse Tol, Crick Lund, Jasmine Turner and Anthony Guevara for their inputs.

Author contribution

MJ was responsible for conceiving and writing the manuscript

Financial support

None declared.

Competing interest

None declared.

References

Adam, T and de Savigny, D (2012) Systems thinking for strengthening health systems in LMICs: Need for a paradigm shift. Health Policy and Planning 27(suppl_4), iv1–iv3.10.1093/heapol/czs084CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bemme, D and Kirmayer, LJ (2020) Global Mental Health: Interdisciplinary Challenges for a Field in Motion. London: Sage Publications Sage UK.Google ScholarPubMed
Bleile, ACE, Koppenol-Gonzalez, GV, Verreault, K, Abeling, K, Hofman, E, Vriend, W, Hasan, A and Jordans, MJD (2021) Process evaluation of TeamUp: A movement-based psychosocial intervention for refugee children in the Netherlands. International Journal of Mental Health Systems 15(1), 1–16.10.1186/s13033-021-00450-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, FL, Yousef, H, Bleile, ACE, Mansour, H, Barrett, A, Ghatasheh, M, Puffer, ES, Mansour, Z, Hayef, K, Kurdi, S, Ali, Q, Tol, WA, El-Khani, E, Calam, R, Hassan, HA and Jordans, MJD (2024) Nurturing families: A feasibility randomised controlled trial of a whole-family intervention with vulnerable families in Jordan. Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health 11, e51.Google ScholarPubMed
Carey, G and Crammond, B (2015) Systems change for the social determinants of health. BMC Public Health 15(1), 1–10.10.1186/s12889-015-1979-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carey, G, Malbon, E, Carey, N, Joyce, A, Crammond, B and Carey, A (2015) Systems science and systems thinking for public health: A systematic review of the field. BMJ Open 5(12).10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarkson, J, Dean, J, Ward, J, Komashie, A and Bashford, T (2018) A systems approach to healthcare: From thinking to practice. Future Healthcare Journal 5(3), 151–155.10.7861/futurehosp.5-3-151CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cordon, CP (2013) System theories: An overview of various system theories and its application in healthcare. American Journal of Systems Science 2(1), 13–22.Google Scholar
Dawson, KS, Watts, S, Carswell, K, Shehadeh, MH, Jordans, MJD, Bryant, RA, Miller, KE, Malik, A, Brown, FL and Servili, C (2019) Improving access to evidence‐based interventions for young adolescents: Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions (EASE). World Psychiatry 18(1), 105.10.1002/wps.20594CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, MC, Huang, TTK, Giusto, A, Lovero, KL, Stockton, MA, Shelton, RC, Dos Santos, P, Saúte, F and Wainberg, ML (2021) Leveraging systems science to promote the implementation and sustainability of mental health and psychosocial interventions in low-and middle-income countries. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 29(4), 262–277.10.1097/HRP.0000000000000306CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, PS (2011) Understanding global health governance as a complex adaptive system. Global Public Health 6(6), 593–605.10.1080/17441691003762108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IASC (2007) IASC Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings. Geneva: IASC.Google Scholar
Jordans, MJD and Kohrt, BA (2020) Scaling up mental health care and psychosocial support in low-resource settings: A roadmap to impact. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 29, e189.10.1017/S2045796020001018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordans, MJD, Pigott, H and Tol, WA (2016) Interventions for children affected by armed conflict: A systematic review of mental health and psychosocial support in low-and middle-income countries. Current Psychiatry Reports 18(1), 1–15.10.1007/s11920-015-0648-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordans, MJD, van den Broek, M, Brown, F, Coetzee, A, Ellermeijer, REC, Hartog, K, Steen, HF and Miller, KE (2018) Supporting children affected by War. In Nickerson, A and Morina, N (eds.), Mental Health in Refugee and Post Conflict Populations: Theory, Research and Clinical Practice. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
Jordans, MJD, Steen, F, Koppenol-Gonzalez, GV, El Masri, R, Coetzee, AR, Chamate, S, Ghatasheh, M, Pedersen, GA, Itani, M, El Chammay, R, Schafer, A and Kohrt, BA (2022) Evaluation of competency-driven training for facilitators delivering a psychological intervention for children in Lebanon: A proof-of-concept study. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 31, e48.10.1017/S2045796022000348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komashie, A, Hinrichs-Krapels, S and Clarkson, PJ (2021) Systems approaches to healthcare systems design and care delivery: An overview of the literature. Proceedings of the Design Society 1, 2941–2950.10.1017/pds.2021.555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, CH and Huili Lin, S (2017) Systems theory. The International Ecyclopedia of Organizational Communication 4, 1–18.Google Scholar
Lancet Mental Health Group (2007) Scale up services for mental disorders: A call for action. Lancet 370, 1241–1252.10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61242-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, C (2023) Global mental health and its social determinants: How should we intervene? Behaviour Research and Therapy 169.10.1016/j.brat.2023.104402CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, C, Jordans, MJD, Garman, EC, Araya, R, Avendano, M, Bauer, A, Bahure, V, Dua, T, Eleftheriou, G and Evans-Lacko, S (2023) Strengthening self-regulation and reducing poverty to prevent adolescent depression and anxiety: Rationale, approach and methods of the ALIVE interdisciplinary research collaboration in Colombia, Nepal and South Africa. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 32, e69.10.1017/S2045796023000811CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, C and Sturmberg, J (2009) Complex adaptive chronic care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15(3), 571–577.10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01022.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metzl, JM and Hansen, H (2014) Structural competency: Theorizing a new medical engagement with stigma and inequality. Social Science & Medicine 103, 126–133.10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.032CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Midgley, G and Rajagopalan, R (2020) Critical systems thinking, systemic intervention, and beyond. In Handbook of Systems Sciences. pp. 1–51.Google Scholar
Miller, KE, Chen, A, Koppenol-Gonzalez, GV, Bakolis, I, Arnous, M, Tossyeh, F, El Hassan, A, Saleh, A, Saade, J, Nahas, N, Abboud, M, Jawad, A and Jordans, MJD (2022) Supporting parenting among Syrian refugees in Lebanon: A randomized controlled trial of the caregiver support intervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 10.1111/jcpp.13668.Google Scholar
Montuori, A (2011) Systems approach. Encyclopedia of Creativity 2, 414–421.10.1016/B978-0-12-375038-9.00212-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paina, L and Peters, DH (2012) Understanding pathways for scaling up health services through the lens of complex adaptive systems. Health Policy and Planning 27(5), 365–373.10.1093/heapol/czr054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, V (2023) Transforming mental health systems globally: Principles and policy recommendations. The Lancet 402(10402), 656–666.10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00918-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, V, Saxena, S, Lund, C, Thornicroft, G, Baingana, F, Bolton, P, Chisholm, D, Collins, PY, Cooper, JL, Eaton, J, Hermann, H, Herzallah, M, Huang, Y, Jordans, MJD, Kleinman, A, Medina Mora, ME, Morgan, E, Niaz, U, Omigbodun, O, Prince, M, Rahman, A, Saraceno, B, Sarkar, K, De Silva, M, Ilina, Singh, Stein, DJ, Sunkel, C and Unutzer, J (2018) The Lancet commission on global mental health and sustainable development. The Lancet 392(10157), 1553–1598.10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31612-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, V, Saxena, S, Lund, C, Kohrt, BA, Kieling, C, Sunkel, C, Kola, L, Chang, O, Charlson, F, O’Neill, K and Herrman, H (2023) Transforming mental health systems globally: Principles and policy recommendations. The Lancet 402(10402), 656–666.10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00918-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, DH (2014) The application of systems thinking in health: Why use systems thinking? Health Research Policy and Systems 12(1), 1–6.10.1186/1478-4505-12-51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singla, DR, Kohrt, BA, Murray, LK, Anand, A, Chorpita, BF and Patel, V (2017) Psychological treatments for the world: Lessons from low-and middle-income countries. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 13, 149–181.10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045217CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterman, J (2002) System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division.Google Scholar
Thornicroft, G, Chatterji, S, Evans-Lacko, S, Gruber, M, Sampson, N, Aguilar-Gaxiola, S, Al-Hamzawi, A, Alonso, J, Andrade, L, Borges, G, Bruffaearts, R, Bunting, B, Caldas-de-Almeida, JM, Florescu, S, De Girolamo, G, Gureje, O, Haro, J, He, Y, Hinkov, M, Karam, E, Kawakami, N, Lee, S, Navarro-Mateu, F, Piazza, M, Posada-Villa, J, Torres de Galvis, Y and Kessler, RC (2017) Undertreatment of people with major depressive disorder in 21 countries. The British Journal of Psychiatry 210(2), 119–124.10.1192/bjp.bp.116.188078CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tol, WA, Le, PTD, Harrison, SL, Galappatti, A, Annan, J, Baingana, FK, Betancourt, TS, Bizouerne, C, Eaton, J and Engels, M (2023) Mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings: Research priorities for 2021–30. The Lancet Global Health 11(6), e969–e975.10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00128-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trani, JF, Ballard, E, Bakhshi, P and Hovmand, P (2016) Community based system dynamic as an approach for understanding and acting on messy problems: A case study for global mental health intervention in Afghanistan. Conflict and Health 10, 1–11.10.1186/s13031-016-0089-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, JS, Taha, K, Ibrahim, N, Neijenhuijs, KI, Hallak, E, Radford, K, Stubbé-Alberts, H, de Hoop, T, Jordans, MJD and Brown, FL (2022) A proof-of-concept study of can’t wait to learn: A digital game-based learning program for out-of-school children in Lebanon. Journal of Education in Emergencies 8(1), 76. 10.33682/8v7u-q7y3.Google Scholar
Vallières, F, Elshazly, M, Sleiman, JB, Abou Daher, R, a Bháird, CN, Ceannt, R, Hyland, P and Ventevogel, P (2022) Implementing Systems Thinking for Global Mental Health during Humanitarian Emergencies. Systems Thinking for Global Health: How can systems-thinking contribute to solving key challenges in Global Health?, p.145.10.1093/oso/9780198799498.003.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Broek, M, Hegazi, L, Ghazal, N, Hamayel, L, Barrett, A, Kohrt, BA and Jordans, MJD (2023) Accuracy of a proactive case detection tool for internalizing and externalizing problems among children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 72(1), S88–S95.10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.03.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Bertalanffy, L (1968) General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. G. Braziller.Google Scholar
Whelan, J, Fraser, P, Bolton, KA, Love, P, Strugnell, C, Boelsen-Robinson, T, Blake, MR, Martin, E, Allender, S and Bell, C (2023) Combining systems thinking approaches and implementation science constructs within community-based prevention: A systematic review. Health Research Policy and Systems 21(1), 85.10.1186/s12961-023-01023-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whiteford, HA, Degenhardt, L, Rehm, J, Baxter, AJ, Ferrari, AJ, Erskine, HE, Charlson, FJ, Norman, RE, Flaxman, AD, Johns, N and others (2013) Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: Findings from the global burden of disease study 2010. The Lancet 382(9904), 1575–1586.10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61611-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO (2016) mhGAP Intervention Guide for Mental, Neurological and Substance Use Disorders in Non-specialized Health Settings (version 2.0). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
WHO (2022) World Mental Health Report: Transforming Mental Health for All. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J, Goff, M, Rusoja, E, Hanson, C and Swanson, RC (2018) The application of systems thinking concepts, methods, and tools to global health practices: An analysis of case studies. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 24(3), 607–618.10.1111/jep.12842CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Windisch, R, Waiswa, P, Neuhann, F, Scheibe, F and de Savigny, D (2011) Scaling up antiretroviral therapy in Uganda: Using supply chain management to appraise health systems strengthening. Globalization and Health 7, 1–11.10.1186/1744-8603-7-25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Author comment: Applying systems theory to global mental health — R0/PR1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.pr1 [Opens in a new window]
Mark JD Jordans [Opens in a new window] IoPPN, King’s College London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Revision round: 0
Role: author

Comments

Amsterdam, 29 April 2024

To: Cambridge Prism: Global Mental Health

Re: Submission of manuscript: Applying systems theory to global mental health

Dear Professors Bass and Chibanda,

Please consider the accompanying paper for publication in the Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. This paper is submitted for the Perspective section of your Journal.

This paper argues for the relevance of adopting a systems theory or systems science lens in the research and implementation of global mental health programs, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

With solid evidence for the burden of, and social determinants associated with, mental illness, as well as evidence for the effectiveness of psychological interventions adopting a task-shifting model, a systems approach can help shift the attention to the architecture of mental health services. How are services organized to ensure these are of adequate quality and scalable? How can mental health services embrace and address social determinants of mental health? Systems science is the transdisciplinary study of systems, defined as interconnected and interdependent components that together make up the whole that is more than the sum of its part. The utility of applying a systems lens can support future global mental health efforts by embracing and understanding the complexity of factors involved in sustainable mental health care, using systems dynamics tools like causal loop diagrams, process mapping, dynamic modelling to do so. Specifically, this paper will provide an analyses of, and examples for, how systems thinking can help; (i) to better understand the key drivers of mental health problems and services, (ii) to optimize mental health services; (iii) to understand the organization of people, institutions, and resources required for rolling out and scaling-

No competing interests need to be disclosed. I warrant that the manuscript represents original work and has not been published nor submitted for publication elsewhere.

I thank you for considering our manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Mark J D Jordans

Amsterdam Institute of Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam

Center for Global Mental Health, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London

Research and Development Department, War Child Alliance, Amsterdam

Review: Applying systems theory to global mental health — R0/PR2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.pr2 [Opens in a new window]
Reviewer_1
Date of review:  27 May 2024
Revision round: 0
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This paper provides a compelling rationale for the incorporation of systems science theory and methods into global mental health research. This directly addresses one of the big questions in global mental health, which is how to position and translate the growing evidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions delivered through task-shifting models into real-world practice, systems, and impact. The author nicely articulates how systems science may help answer this question, while providing some specific examples and considerations for researchers who may incorporate these methods into their work. Overall, I think the article is very well-written, logical, and important to publish. I have a few minor comments below for the author to consider:

- Pg. 2: The author makes an important point about the limitations of single-intervention approaches, which largely measure outcomes on the individual level, making it difficult to understand population-level changes. In additional to multiplicative effects of combined or systems of care approaches, I wonder if taking a systems approach may also enable the field to explore indirect, unintended, or “spillover” effects that could also contribute to population-level changes and impacts. I agree that not measuring or being able to evaluate population-level changes is a major limitation of the field and systems thinking is a nice tool to address this gap. Perhaps this point deserves more elaboration and exploration of other pathways by which a systems approach could help us measure and amplify population-level impact.

- Pg. 3: I appreciate your paragraph summarizing the origin and evolution of systems thinking. I think it is helpful to contrast this perspective to the (still) dominant form of scientific thinking. In many ways, the fields of epidemiology and causal inference insist on isolating relationships and effects, which is a clear example of reductionism. It seems like there must be a way for these two perspectives to co-exist in research and perhaps the author could reflect on this a bit more.

- Pg. 5-6: Further differentiation between implementation science and systems science, including what each discipline offers, to answer these global mental health questions could strengthen the paper. I agree with the author that these fields can be used to reinforce each other. However, I’m not sure that the point about personalization or stratification (“what works for whom in which circumstance?”) being a hallmark of a systems approach is true in all cases. On the contrary, I would argue that the systems approach provides a very macro, population-level view of these dynamics, but won’t tell you much about what happens at the individual level. One of the value-adds of systems science that I don’t think implementation science has quite figured out is how to model the interactions between factors that exist and different levels (e.g., individual-level characteristics interacting with the political environment). Perhaps this section should be clarified or revised a bit to better explain the author’s argument.

- Pg. 6: The ‘How is it applicable?’ section and the two textboxes offer some very nice, clear examples.

- Another example of the use of systems science in global mental health is the article by Trani et al., which is focused on mental health in Afghanistan. It may be worth including this paper as a reference.

-

Editorial comments:

- The first sentence of the impact statement is quite long. Perhaps split this into two sentences or reword

- In the abstract, I think the first sentence should read “…demonstrating that task-shifting models result…”I don’t think that ‘results’ should be plural.

- Formatting of some of the in-text citations seems incorrect with multiple author names presented as one word.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.

Review: Applying systems theory to global mental health — R0/PR3

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.pr3 [Opens in a new window]
Reviewer_2
Date of review:  25 June 2024
Revision round: 0
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: reject

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests to declare

Comments

I don’t think this perspective is particularly well-written. There are many grammar errors throughout and his argument is hard to follow. I would have expected better/more citations. The case study is also presented in away that makes it difficult to follow-up how the case provides good example of systems thinking.

Review: Applying systems theory to global mental health — R0/PR4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.pr4 [Opens in a new window]
André Janse van Rensburg [Opens in a new window] Centre for Rural Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Date of review:  07 July 2024
Revision round: 0
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: major-revision

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The paper correctly situates the field of global health interventions as single or relatively isolated programmatic responses to specific issues, thereby neglecting the systems within which such interventions are deployed. Interventional research is therefore always contained within a specific delineated space, and its affects are therefore not reproducible. The paper speaks to a long-due necessity in GMH, i.e. more rigorously theorizing it in order to provide better strategic methodological guidance. Nonetheless, it could be improved.

Three main points of critique are raised here:

First, throughout the paper points to systems theory as a theoretical panacea for the overly-programmatic focus of mental health interventions, without properly identifying or outlining the type of systems theory that is proposed. This is an important point, as it provides the foundation for methodological considerations. Von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory is mentioned, but in practice many variations have emerged. See, for instance, the critical realist conception of systems theory, Jackson’s total systems intervention, Midley’s work of critical system thinking and systemic intervention (Midgley, G., Rajagopalan, R. (2021). Critical Systems Thinking, Systemic Intervention, and Beyond. In: Metcalf, G.S., Kijima, K., Deguchi, H. (eds) Handbook of Systems Sciences. Springer, Singapore; Midgley, G., & Lindhult, E. (2021). A systems perspective on systemic innovation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 38(5), 635–670), the chaos theory applications, complex adaptive systems and cybernetics, world systems theory, etc. See, as an example, Martin C, Sturmberg J. Complex adaptive chronic care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Jun;15(3):571-7. Importantly, a distinction should be made between systems theory, systems thinking, systems science, and complexity thinking, without conflating the terms.

Second, when applying systems theory to global mental health, one needs to consider it as a part of larger systems. Systems thinking has been applied to global health (e.g. Hill PS. Understanding global health governance as a complex adaptive system. Glob Public Health. 2011;6(6):593-605; Haffeld J. Facilitative governance: transforming global health through complexity theory. Glob Public Health. 2012;7(5):452-64). The question arises whether global mental health could be conceptualized in terms of systems theory without considering within which systems it is embedded – whether this is in terms of complex adaptive subsystems in relation to global health, global governance etc., or in relation to Bourdieusian fields etc. Is it helpful to situate GMH in terms of a system without considering its relations with other systems, its conceptual boundaries, its actors and institutions? A case could be made that a key principle of GMH – integration – is lost when it’s treated as a programme/system on its own. Epidemiological shifts, especially in low-resource areas (both LMIC and HIC) have necessitated a radical re-think of the utility of conceptualizations of global mental health, global NCDs, global HIV/TB and so forth.

Third, the adaptation of systems theory to GMH requires a consideration of methodological and theoretical pluralism. On page 5, it is recommended that combined interventions should be evaluated in terms of an open system, with leverage points, while also focusing on the emergent properties of systems – what does this mean in practice? Passing reference is made to implementation science (which is incorrectly equated to realist thinking – there are certainly overlaps, but the two are not the same) and hybrid trials, but these are already undertaken and funded comprehensively. What would systems theory add?

An important critique of systems theory is its leaning towards upwards conflation and thereby negating the important dynamics of power and agency that have beset global health throughout its history. This has also been a consistent critique against GMH as a movement. The focal point of systems theory tends to be balance, while often political revolution is required for the core causes of mental distress (poverty and other social determinants of mental health) to be addressed. This is particularly why it is important to define the type of systems theory being proposed, in order to address critique.

Many of these concerns are indirectly addressed or assumed in the case study presented, and it seems as though complex adaptive theory is proposed here. By more clearly focusing the paper on this particularly thread of systems theory, the argument overall will be tighter while providing tangible methodological recommendations. Text box 2 is somewhat redundant, while the focus on LMICs should preferably be replaced with “low-resourced” or “underserved” contexts, as GMH also covers mental distress among many communities in HICs.

In summary, the paper certainly has weight, but requires more rigour in its theoretical conceptualization.

Recommendation: Applying systems theory to global mental health — R0/PR5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.pr5 [Opens in a new window]
Inge Petersen [Opens in a new window] University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Date of review:  24 July 2024
Revision round: 0
Role: Handling Editor
Recommendation/decision: major-revision

Comments

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. Unfortunately, we cannot accept it in its current form. Kindly attend to the recommendations made by reviewer 1 and 2,

Decision: Applying systems theory to global mental health — R0/PR6

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.pr6 [Opens in a new window]
Dixon Chibanda [Opens in a new window] London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Revision round: 0
Role: Editor in Chief
Recommendation/decision: major-revision

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Applying systems theory to global mental health — R1/PR7

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.pr7 [Opens in a new window]
Mark JD Jordans [Opens in a new window] IoPPN, King’s College London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Revision round: 1
Role: author

Comments

21 October 2024

Amsterdam

To: Editor, Global Mental Health

Re: Submission revised manuscript “Applying systems theory to global mental health"

Dear Prof Petersen, Dear Inge

Following the reviewer’s feedback I have revised our manuscript to be considered for publication in Global Mental Health.

I am thankful for the reviewers’ comments, as it has allowed me to improve the paper. Please, find below a description of the changes that I have made, based on the received comments.

I warrant that the material contained in the manuscript represents original work, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Thank you for considering the revised manuscript and look forward to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Mark Jordans

Research and Development Department, War Child Alliance, the Netherlands

Amsterdam Institute of Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Center for Global Mental Health, King’s College London, UK

Review: Applying systems theory to global mental health — R1/PR8

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.pr8 [Opens in a new window]
Reviewer_1
Date of review:  29 October 2024
Revision round: 1
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: accept

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The revisions have significantly improved the manuscript. All of my suggestions have been thoroughly addressed. Congratulations to the author on this well-written and important paper.

Recommendation: Applying systems theory to global mental health — R1/PR9

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.pr9 [Opens in a new window]
Inge Petersen [Opens in a new window] University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Date of review:  01 November 2024
Revision round: 1
Role: Handling Editor
Recommendation/decision: accept

Comments

Thank you for this very thorough response to the reviewers' comments. This is a welcomed timeous contribution to the field of global mental health

Decision: Applying systems theory to global mental health — R1/PR10

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2024.147.pr10 [Opens in a new window]
Dixon Chibanda [Opens in a new window] London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Revision round: 1
Role: Editor in Chief
Recommendation/decision: accept

Comments

No accompanying comment.