ObjectivesThis paper reports on findings from a systematic review designed to investigate the state of systems science research in public health. The objectives were to: (1) explore how systems methodologies are being applied within public health and (2) identify fruitful areas of activity.DesignA systematic review was conducted from existing literature that draws on or uses systems science (in its various forms) and relates to key public health areas of action and concern, including tobacco, alcohol, obesity and the social determinants of health.Data analysis117 articles were included in the review. An inductive qualitative content analysis was used for data extraction. The following were systematically extracted from the articles: approach, methodology, transparency, strengths and weaknesses. These were then organised according to theme (ie, commonalities between studies within each category), in order to provide an overview of the state of the field as a whole. The assessment of data quality was intrinsic to the goals of the review itself, and therefore, was carried out as part of the analysis.Results4 categories of research were identified from the review, ranging from editorial and commentary pieces to complex system dynamic modelling. Our analysis of each of these categories of research highlighted areas of potential for systems science to strengthen public health efforts, while also revealing a number of limitations in the dynamic systems modelling being carried out in public health.ConclusionsThere is a great deal of interest in how the application of systems concepts and approach might aid public health. Our analysis suggests that soft systems modelling techniques are likely to be the most useful addition to public health, and align well with current debate around knowledge transfer and policy. However, the full range of systems methodologies is yet to be engaged with by public health researchers.

IntroductionSystems thinking has emerged in recent years as a promising approach to understanding and acting on the prevention and amelioration of non-communicable disease. However, the evidence on inequities in non-communicable diseases and their risks factors, particularly diet, has not been examined from a systems perspective. We report on an approach to developing a system oriented policy actor perspective on the multiple causes of inequities in healthy eating.MethodsCollaborative conceptual modelling workshops were held in 2015 with an expert group of representatives from government, non-government health organisations and academia in Australia. The expert group built a systems model using a system dynamics theoretical perspective. The model developed from individual mind maps to pair blended maps, before being finalised as a causal loop diagram.ResultsThe work of the expert stakeholders generated a comprehensive causal loop diagram of the determinants of inequity in healthy eating (the HE2 Diagram). This complex dynamic system has seven sub-systems: (1) food supply and environment; (2) transport; (3) housing and the built environment; (4) employment; (5) social protection; (6) health literacy; and (7) food preferences.DiscussionThe HE2 causal loop diagram illustrates the complexity of determinants of inequities in healthy eating. This approach, both the process of construction and the final visualisation, can provide the basis for planning the prevention and amelioration of inequities in healthy eating that engages with multiple levels of causes and existing policies and programs.

Personalized care and market-based approaches to public service provision have gained prominence in a range of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Australia has recently joined this trend, launching a complex and expansive programme of individualized care funding for disability through the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Public sector markets (i.e. where governments either directly fund a market by way of competitive tendering, or through personal budgets) have been embraced by actors at different points of the political spectrum and for a range of reasons, including efficacy and efficiency gains, empowerment of citizens and efforts to cater for diversity. Despite the growing dominance of public sector markets and individualized funding, many questions about the role and responsibility of governments in managing and regulating these markets remain unanswered. In this article we outline different roles governments might assume in the creation and management of public sector markets, based on the types of risks governments are willing to take responsibility for. We argue that to fulfil the social contract between government and citizens, governments need to ensure that markets are properly stewarded and embedded in broader social safety nets. This, we contend, can ensure citizens receive the gains of market models while being protected from market failures or market-produced inequities.