All life requires the capacity to recover from challenges that are as inevitable as they are unpredictable. Understanding this resilience is essential for managing the health of humans and their livestock. It has long been difficult to quantify resilience directly, forcing practitioners to rely on indirect static indicators of health. However, measurements from wearable electronics and other sources now allow us to analyze the dynamics of physiology and behavior with unsurpassed resolution. The resulting flood of data coincides with the emergence of novel analytical tools for estimating resilience from the pattern of microrecoveries observed in natural time series. Such dynamic indicators of resilience may be used to monitor the risk of systemic failure across systems ranging from organs to entire organisms. These tools invite a fundamental rethinking of our approach to the adaptive management of health and resilience.

We argue that 'multimorbidity' is the manifestation of interconnected physiological network processes within an individual in his or her socio-cultural environment. Networks include genomic, metabolomic, proteomic, neuroendocrine, immune and mitochondrial bioenergetic elements, as well as social, environmental and health care networks. Stress systems and other physiological mechanisms create feedback loops that integrate and regulate internal networks within the individual. Minor (e.g. daily hassles) and major (e.g. trauma) stressful life experiences perturb internal and social networks resulting in physiological instability with changes ranging from improved resilience to unhealthy adaptation and 'clinical disease'. Understanding 'multimorbidity' as a complex adaptive systems response to biobehavioural and socioenvironmental networks is essential. Thus, designing integrative care delivery approaches that more adequately address the underlying disease processes as the manifestation of a state of physiological dysregulation is essential. This framework can shape care delivery approaches to meet the individual's care needs in the context of his or her underlying illness experience. It recognizes 'multimorbidity' and its symptoms as the end product of complex physiological processes, namely, stress activation and mitochondrial energetics, and suggests new opportunities for treatment and prevention. The future of 'multimorbidity' management might become much more discerning by combining the balancing of physiological dysregulation with targeted personalized biotechnology interventions such as small molecule therapeutics targeting specific cellular components of the stress response, with community-embedded interventions that involve addressing psycho-socio-cultural impediments that would aim to strengthen personal/social resilience and enhance social capital.

We introduce the concept of the health care vortex as a metaphor by which to understand the complex adaptive nature of health systems, and the degree to which their behaviour is predetermined by their 'shared values' or attractors. We contrast the likely functions and outcomes of a health system with a people-centred attractor and one with a financial attractor. This analysis suggests a shift in the system's attractor is fundamental to progress health reform thinking.

PURPOSE Over the past 7 decades, theories in the systems and complexity sciences have had a major influence on academic thinking and research. We assessed the impact of complexity science on general practice/family medicine. METHODSWe performed a historical integrative review using the following systematic search strategy: medical subject heading [humans] combined in turn with the terms complex adaptive systems, nonlinear dynamics, systems biology, and systems theory, limited to general practice/family medicine and published before December 2010. A total of 16,242 articles were retrieved, of which 49 were published in general practice/family medicine journals. Hand searches and snowballing retrieved another 35. After a full-text review, we included 56 articles dealing specifically with systems sciences and general/family practice. RESULTSGeneral practice/family medicine engaged with the emerging systems and complexity theories in 4 stages. Before 1995, articles tended to explore common phenomenologic general practice/family medicine experiences. Between 1995 and 2000, articles described the complex adaptive nature of this discipline. Those published between 2000 and 2005 focused on describing the system dynamics of medical practice. After 2005, articles increasingly applied the breadth of complex science theories to health care, health care reform, and the future of medicine.CONCLUSIONS This historical review describes the development of general practice/family medicine in relation to complex adaptive systems theories, and shows how systems sciences more accurately reflect the discipline's philosophy and identity. Analysis suggests that general practice/family medicine first embraced systems theories through conscious reorganization of its boundaries and scope, before applying empirical tools. Future research should concentrate on applying nonlinear dynamics and empirical modeling to patient care, and to organizing and developing local practices, engaging in community development, and influencing health care reform. 2014;66-74. doi:10.1370/afm.1593. Ann Fam Med INTRODUCTIONC omplex adaptive systems are defined as collections of many different components (agents) interacting in nonlinear ways in the absence of any external supervisory influence. The behaviors of a complex adaptive system cannot be explained by the behavior of specific agents (reductionism); instead, complex adaptive systems show emergent behaviors. Table 1 provides definitions for core terms from systems sciences and their characteristic effects on system behaviors. 1Complex systems theories emerged during the second half of the 19th century as physicists, mathematicians, chemists, and others searched for better explanatory models to describe and predict the behavior of phenomena under study. The reductionist model, dominant since the 17th century, had led to important discoveries of human physiology and pathophysiology, laying the foundation for an extraordinary rise in diagnostic and therapeutic effectiveness. These developments, coupl...

No abstract

Health is an adaptive state unique to each person. This subjective state must be distinguished from the objective state of disease. The experience of health and illness (or poor health) can occur both in the absence and presence of objective disease. Given that the subjective experience of health, as well as the finding of objective disease in the community, follow a Pareto distribution, the following questions arise: What are the processes that allow the emergence of four observable states—(1) subjective health in the absence of objective disease, (2) subjective health in the presence of objective disease, (3) illness in the absence of objective disease, and (4) illness in the presence of objective disease? If we consider each individual as a unique biological system, these four health states must emerge from physiological network structures and personal behaviors. The underlying physiological mechanisms primarily arise from the dynamics of external environmental and internal patho/physiological stimuli, which activate regulatory systems including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and autonomic nervous system. Together with other systems, they enable feedback interactions between all of the person's system domains and impact on his system's entropy. These interactions affect individual behaviors, emotional, and cognitive responses, as well as molecular, cellular, and organ system level functions. This paper explores the hypothesis that health is an emergent state that arises from hierarchical network interactions between a person's external environment and internal physiology. As a result, the concept of health synthesizes available qualitative and quantitative evidence of interdependencies and constraints that indicate its top-down and bottom-up causative mechanisms. Thus, to provide effective care, we must use strategies that combine person-centeredness with the scientific approaches that address the molecular network physiology, which together underpin health and disease. Moreover, we propose that good health can also be promoted by strengthening resilience and self-efficacy at the personal and social level, and via cohesion at the population level. Understanding health as a state that is both individualized and that emerges from multi-scale interdependencies between microlevel physiological mechanisms of health and disease and macrolevel societal domains may provide the basis for a new public discourse for health service and health system redesign.

Knowledge translation methods for health sciences research need to be specifically developed and evaluated within the context of Aboriginal communities.

In this paper we argue that knowledge in health care is a multidimensional dynamic construct, in contrast to the prevailing idea of knowledge being an objective state. Polanyi demonstrated that knowledge is personal, that knowledge is discovered, and that knowledge has explicit and tacit dimensions. Complex adaptive systems science views knowledge simultaneously as a thing and a flow, constructed as well as in constant flux. The Cynefin framework is one model to help our understanding of knowledge as a personal construct achieved through sense making. Specific knowledge aspects temporarily reside in either one of four domains - the known, knowable, complex or chaotic, but new knowledge can only be created by challenging the known by moving it in and looping it through the other domains. Medical knowledge is simultaneously explicit and implicit with certain aspects already well known and easily transferable, and others that are not yet fully known and must still be learned. At the same time certain knowledge aspects are predominantly concerned with content, whereas others deal with context. Though in clinical care we may operate predominately in one knowledge domain, we also will operate some of the time in the others. Medical knowledge is inherently uncertain, and we require a context-driven flexible approach to knowledge discovery and application, in clinical practice as well as in health service planning.