Gemma Moore1, Susan Michie2, Jamie Anderson3, Kristine Belesova4, Melanie Crane5, Clément Deloly6, Sani Dimitroulopoulou7, Hellen Gitau8, Joanna Hale9, Simon J Lloyd10, Blessing Mberu8, Kanyiva Muindi8, Yanlin Niu11, Helen Pineo1, Irene Pluchinotta1, Aarathi Prasad12, Anne Roue-Le Gall6, Clive Shrubsole1, Catalina Turcu13, Ioanna Tsoulou1, Paul Wilkinson4, Ke Zhou1, Nici Zimmermann1, Michael Davies1, David Osrin12. 1. Institute of Environmental Design and Engineering, Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Resources, University College London, London, WC1H 0NN, UK. 2. Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. 3. Buro Happold, Manchester, M3 4LZ, UK. 4. Centre on Climate Change and Planetary Health and Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. 5. Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2006, Australia. 6. Department of Environmental and occupational Health, EHESP, Rennes, 35000, France. 7. Air Quality and Public Health, Environmental Hazards and Emergencies Dept, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Chilton, OX11 0RQ, UK. 8. African Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya. 9. Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. 10. Climate and Health Programme (CLIMA), Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, 08003, Spain. 11. State Key Laboratory of Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, 102206, China. 12. Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. 13. Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, London, 1WC 0NN, UK.
Abstract
Background: Environmental improvement is a priority for urban sustainability and health and achieving it requires transformative change in cities. An approach to achieving such change is to bring together researchers, decision-makers, and public groups in the creation of research and use of scientific evidence. Methods: This article describes the development of a programme theory for Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health (CUSSH), a four-year Wellcome-funded research collaboration which aims to improve capacity to guide transformational health and environmental changes in cities. Results: Drawing on ideas about complex systems, programme evaluation, and transdisciplinary learning, we describe how the programme is understood to "work" in terms of its anticipated processes and resulting changes. The programme theory describes a chain of outputs that ultimately leads to improvement in city sustainability and health (described in an 'action model'), and the kinds of changes that we expect CUSSH should lead to in people, processes, policies, practices, and research (described in a 'change model'). Conclusions: Our paper adds to a growing body of research on the process of developing a comprehensive understanding of a transdisciplinary, multiagency, multi-context programme. The programme theory was developed collaboratively over two years. It involved a participatory process to ensure that a broad range of perspectives were included, to contribute to shared understanding across a multidisciplinary team. Examining our approach allowed an appreciation of the benefits and challenges of developing a programme theory for a complex, transdisciplinary research collaboration. Benefits included the development of teamworking and shared understanding and the use of programme theory in guiding evaluation. Challenges included changing membership within a large group, reaching agreement on what the theory would be 'about', and the inherent unpredictability of complex initiatives. Copyright:
Background: Environmental improvement is a priority for urban sustainability and health and achieving it requires transformative change in cities. An approach to achieving such change is to bring together researchers, decision-makers, and public groups in the creation of research and use of scientific evidence. Methods: This article describes the development of a programme theory for Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health (CUSSH), a four-year Wellcome-funded research collaboration which aims to improve capacity to guide transformational health and environmental changes in cities. Results: Drawing on ideas about complex systems, programme evaluation, and transdisciplinary learning, we describe how the programme is understood to "work" in terms of its anticipated processes and resulting changes. The programme theory describes a chain of outputs that ultimately leads to improvement in city sustainability and health (described in an 'action model'), and the kinds of changes that we expect CUSSH should lead to in people, processes, policies, practices, and research (described in a 'change model'). Conclusions: Our paper adds to a growing body of research on the process of developing a comprehensive understanding of a transdisciplinary, multiagency, multi-context programme. The programme theory was developed collaboratively over two years. It involved a participatory process to ensure that a broad range of perspectives were included, to contribute to shared understanding across a multidisciplinary team. Examining our approach allowed an appreciation of the benefits and challenges of developing a programme theory for a complex, transdisciplinary research collaboration. Benefits included the development of teamworking and shared understanding and the use of programme theory in guiding evaluation. Challenges included changing membership within a large group, reaching agreement on what the theory would be 'about', and the inherent unpredictability of complex initiatives. Copyright:
Authors: Jose A Puppim de Oliveira; Christopher N H Doll; José Siri; Magali Dreyfus; Hooman Farzaneh; Anthony Capon Journal: Cad Saude Publica Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 1.632
Authors: Katy Börner; Noshir Contractor; Holly J Falk-Krzesinski; Stephen M Fiore; Kara L Hall; Joann Keyton; Bonnie Spring; Daniel Stokols; William Trochim; Brian Uzzi Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Yvonne Rydin; Ana Bleahu; Michael Davies; Julio D Dávila; Sharon Friel; Giovanni De Grandis; Nora Groce; Pedro C Hallal; Ian Hamilton; Philippa Howden-Chapman; Ka-Man Lai; C J Lim; Juliana Martins; David Osrin; Ian Ridley; Ian Scott; Myfanwy Taylor; Paul Wilkinson; James Wilson Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David Dodman; Ibidun Adelekan; Donald Brown; Hayley Leck; Mtafu Manda; Blessing Mberu; Mark Pelling; Maria Rusca; David Satterthwaite; Faith Taylor Journal: Area (Oxf) Date: 2018-12-09
Authors: Kristy de Salas; Jennifer Louise Scott; Benjamin Schüz; Kimberley Norris Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 6.671