Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28645319›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

Architectural frameworks: defining the structures for implementing learning health systems.

Lysanne Lessard, Wojtek Michalowski, Michael Fung-Kee-Fung, Lori Jones, Agnes Grudniewicz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lysanne LessardTelfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Ave. Laurier E, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada. Lessard@telfer.uottawa.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-3013-0044
Wojtek MichalowskiTelfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Ave. Laurier E, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada.
Michael Fung-Kee-FungDepartments of Obstetrics-Gynecology and Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Lori JonesUniversity of Ottawa, 55 Ave. Laurier E, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada.
Agnes GrudniewiczTelfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Ave. Laurier E, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe vision of transforming health systems into learning health systems (LHSs) that rapidly and continuously transform knowledge into improved health outcomes at lower cost is generating increased interest in government agencies, health organizations, and health research communities. While existing initiatives demonstrate that different approaches can succeed in making the LHS vision a reality, they are too varied in their goals, focus, and scale to be reproduced without undue effort. Indeed, the structures necessary to effectively design and implement LHSs on a larger scale are lacking. In this paper, we propose the use of architectural frameworks to develop LHSs that adhere to a recognized vision while being adapted to their specific organizational context. Architectural frameworks are high-level descriptions of an organization as a system; they capture the structure of its main components at varied levels, the interrelationships among these components, and the principles that guide their evolution. Because these frameworks support the analysis of LHSs and allow their outcomes to be simulated, they act as pre-implementation decision-support tools that identify potential barriers and enablers of system development. They thus increase the chances of successful LHS deployment. DISCUSSION: We present an architectural framework for LHSs that incorporates five dimensions-goals, scientific, social, technical, and ethical-commonly found in the LHS literature. The proposed architectural framework is comprised of six decision layers that model these dimensions. The performance layer models goals, the scientific layer models the scientific dimension, the organizational layer models the social dimension, the data layer and information technology layer model the technical dimension, and the ethics and security layer models the ethical dimension. We describe the types of decisions that must be made within each layer and identify methods to support decision-making.

conclusionIn this paper, we outline a high-level architectural framework grounded in conceptual and empirical LHS literature. Applying this architectural framework can guide the development and implementation of new LHSs and the evolution of existing ones, as it allows for clear and critical understanding of the types of decisions that underlie LHS operations. Further research is required to assess and refine its generalizability and methods.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDelivery of Health CareHealth Care ReformHealth Plan ImplementationHealth Systems PlansHumansLearningArchitectural frameworkDecision-support toolsLearning health systemPre-implementation

Identifiers

PMID28645319
PMCPMC5481948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.