The science of learning health systems: A scoping review of the empirical research (Preprint)

Author:

Ellis LouiseORCID,Sarkies MitchellORCID,Churruca KateORCID,Dammery GenevieveORCID,Meulenbroeks IsabelleORCID,Smith CarolynnORCID,Pomare ChiaraORCID,Mahmoud ZeyadORCID,Zurynski YvonneORCID,Braithwaite JeffreyORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The development and adoption of a Learning Health System (LHS) has been proposed as a means to address key challenges facing current and future healthcare systems. The first review of the LHS literature was conducted five years ago, identifying only a small number of published articles had empirically examined the implementation or testing of an LHS. It is timely to look more closely at the published empirical research and to ask the question “where are we now?”, five years on from that early LHS review.

OBJECTIVE

A scoping review of empirical research within the LHS domain. Taking an implementation science lens, the review aimed to map out the empirical research that has been conducted to date, identify limitations and future directions for the field.

METHODS

Two academic databases (PubMed and Scopus) were searched using the terms “learning health* system*” for articles published between 1st January 2016–31st January 2021 that had an explicit empirical focus on LHSs. Article information was extracted relevant to the review objective including each study’s: publication details; primary concern or focus; context; design; data type; implementation framework, model or theory used; and implementation determinants or outcomes examined.

RESULTS

A total of 76 studies were included in this review. Over two-thirds of the studies were concerned with implementing a particular program, system, or platform (n=53/76, 69.7%) designed to contribute to achieving an LHS. Most of these studies focused on a particular clinical context or patient population (n=37/53, 69.8%), with far fewer studies focusing on whole hospital systems (n = 4/53, 7.5%) or on other broad healthcare systems encompassing multiple facilities (n=12/53, 22.6%). Over two-thirds of the program-specific studies utilised quantitative methods (n=37/53, 69.8%), with a smaller number utilising qualitative methods (n=10/53, 18.9%) or mixed-methods designs (n=6/53, 11.3%). The remaining 23 studies were classified into one of three key areas: ethics, policies, and governance (n=10/76, 13.2%); stakeholder perspectives of LHSs (n=5/76, 6.6%); or LHS-specific research strategies and tools (n=8/76, 10.5%). Overall, relatively few studies were identified that incorporated an implementation science framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there has been considerable growth in empirical applications of LHSs within the last five years, paralleling the recent emergence of LHS-specific research strategies and tools, there are few high-quality studies. Comprehensive reporting of implementation and evaluation efforts is an important step to moving the LHS field forward. In particular, the routine use of implementation determinant and outcome frameworks will improve the assessment and reporting of barriers, enablers and implementation outcomes in this field and will enable comparison and identification of trends across studies.

CLINICALTRIAL

Publisher

JMIR Publications Inc.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3