Managing uncertainty in the covid-19 era

Health care systems struggle to scale-up and spread effective practices across diverse settings. Failures in scale-up and spread (SUS) are often attributed to a lack of consideration for variation in local contexts among different health care delivery settings. We argue that SUS occurs within complex systems and that self-organization plays an important role in the success, or failure, of SUS. Self-organization is a process whereby local interactions give rise to patterns of organizing. These patterns may be stable or unstable, and they evolve over time. Self-organization is a major contributor to local variations across health care delivery settings. Thus, better understanding of self-organization in the context of SUS is needed. We re-examine two cases of successful SUS: 1) the application of a mobile phone short message service intervention to improve adherence to medications during HIV treatment scale up in resource-limited settings, and 2) MRSA prevention in hospital inpatient settings in the United States. Based on insights from these cases, we discuss the role of interdependencies and sensemaking in leveraging self-organization in SUS initiatives. We argue that self-organization, while not completely controllable, can be influenced, and that improving interdependencies and sensemaking among SUS stakeholders is a strategy for facilitating self-organization processes that increase the probability of spreading effective practices across diverse settings. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Background: In public health emergencies, evidence, intervention, decisions and translation proceed simultaneously, in greatly compressed timeframes, with knowledge and advice constantly in flux. Idealised approaches to evidence-based policy and practice are ill equipped to deal with the uncertainties arising in evolving situations of need. Key points for discussion: There is much to learn from rapid assessment and outbreak science approaches. These emphasise methodological pluralism, adaptive knowledge generation, intervention pragmatism, and an understanding of health and intervention as situated in their practices of implementation. The unprecedented challenges of novel viral outbreaks like COVID- 19 do not simply require us to speed up existing evidence-based approaches, but necessitate new ways of thinking about how a more emergent and adaptive evidence-making might be done. The COVID-19 pandemic requires us to appraise critically what constitutes ‘evidence-enough’ for iterative rapid decisions in-the-now. There are important lessons for how evidence and intervention co-emerge in social practices, and for how evidence-making and intervening proceeds through dialogue incorporating multiple forms of evidence and expertise. Conclusions and implications: Rather than treating adaptive evidence-making and decision making as a break from the routine, we argue that this should be a defining feature of an ‘evidence-making intervention’ approach to health. Key messages COVID-19 necessitates new ways of thinking about emergent evidence-making. Emergencies open up questions about what constitutes ‘evidence-enough’ for rapid decisions in-the-now. Rapid assessment and outbreak science models offer indications of how evidence-making might be done differently. Adaptive evidence-making is needed not only during emergencies but also for intervening in the everyday.