Addressing Complexity in the Pandemic Context: How Systems Thinking Can Facilitate Understanding of Design Aspects for Preventive Technologies

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a wicked problem that is defined by rapidly evolving and dynamic conditions, where the physical world changes (e.g., pathogens mutate) and, in parallel, our understanding and knowledge rapidly progress. Various preventive measures have been developed or proposed to manage the situation, including digital preventive technologies to support contact tracing or physical distancing. The complexity of the pandemic and the rapidly evolving nature of the situation pose challenges for the design of effective preventive technologies. The aim of this conceptual paper is to apply a systems thinking model, DSRP (distinctions, systems, relations, perspectives) to explain the underlying assumptions, patterns, and connections of the pandemic domain, as well as to identify potential leverage points for design of preventive technologies. Two different design approaches, contact tracing and nudging for distance, are compared, focusing on how their design and preventive logic are related to system complexity. The analysis explains why a contact tracing technology involves more complexity, which can challenge both implementation and user understanding. A system utilizing nudges can operate using a more distinct system boundary, which can benefit understanding and implementation. However, frequent nudges might pose challenges for user experience. This further implies that these technologies have different contextual requirements and are useful at different levels in society. The main contribution of this work is to show how systems thinking can organize our understanding and guide the design of preventive technologies in the context of epidemics and pandemics.

Re-defining the Problem in Technology Aided Epidemic Prevention: from contact tracing to behavioral design

“…In this work the DSRP model (distinctions, systems, relations, perspectives) is utilized. This work is described in more detail in study A (Villius Zetterholm & Jokela, 2023).…”

“…This may challenge the motivation for some potential users, especially those who are more focused on individual gains and risks (Akinbi et al, 2021). The timing of information after exposure when using a CTA also mean that the preventive effect becomes secondary (Villius Zetterholm & Jokela, 2023). In study A, these features are conceptualized as part of the preventive logic.…”

“…The preventive logic of CTAs requires multiple steps for the preventive effect to be achieved, which can increase the complexity in both material and cognitive terms. CTAs are an important part of a preventive toolbox, but they require disease-specific information, making this approach dependent on a functioning testing infrastructure, and that multiple steps are followed, which implies higher demands on both understanding and adherence among the users (Villius Zetterholm & Jokela, 2023). Issues of complexity are a common barrier to engaging in societal programs, and can impact both understanding and adherence in the public sector (Sunstein, 2014).…”

“…These findings indicate that users' understanding is a critical theme to consider in relation to both accepting a preventive technology and using it in the intended way. They also show that more complex preventive processes (such as contact tracing) need to be accompanied with more educational information so that users understand the preventive logic (Villius Zetterholm & Jokela, 2023) of different technologies. It is essential that users understand and interact with the technologies in the intended way, to enable the potential affordances of the technologies to come into play.…”