Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31399114›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

A framework for value-creating learning health systems.

Matthew Menear, Marc-André Blanchette, Olivier Demers-Payette, Denis Roy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 187 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
187citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
45.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

187 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 353 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  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

127 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew MenearInstitut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS), Quebec, Canada. matthew.menear.1@ulaval.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0436-6574
Marc-André BlanchetteUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Quebec, Canada.
Olivier Demers-PayetteInstitut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS), Quebec, Canada.
Denis RoyInstitut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS), Quebec, Canada.
Institut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services Sociaux · CAUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterest in value-based healthcare, generally defined as providing better care at lower cost, has grown worldwide, and learning health systems (LHSs) have been proposed as a key strategy for improving value in healthcare. LHSs are emerging around the world and aim to leverage advancements in science, technology and practice to improve health system performance at lower cost. However, there remains much uncertainty around the implementation of LHSs and the distinctive features of these systems. This paper presents a conceptual framework that has been developed in Canada to support the implementation of value-creating LHSs.

methodsThe framework was developed by an interdisciplinary team at the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS). It was informed by a scoping review of the scientific and grey literature on LHSs, regular team discussions over a 14-month period, and consultations with Canadian and international experts.

resultsThe framework describes four elements that characterise LHSs, namely (1) core values, (2) pillars and accelerators, (3) processes and (4) outcomes. LHSs embody certain core values, including an emphasis on participatory leadership, inclusiveness, scientific rigour and person-centredness. In addition, values such as equity and solidarity should also guide LHSs and are particularly relevant in countries like Canada. LHS pillars are the infrastructure and resources supporting the LHS, whereas accelerators are those specific structures that enable more rapid learning and improvement. For LHSs to create value, such infrastructures must not only exist within the ecosystem but also be connected and aligned with the LHSs' strategic goals. These pillars support the execution, routinisation and acceleration of learning cycles, which are the fundamental processes of LHSs. The main outcome sought by executing learning cycles is the creation of value, which we define as the striking of a more optimal balance of impacts on patient and provider experience, population health and health system costs.

conclusionsOur framework illustrates how the distinctive structures, processes and outcomes of LHSs tie together with the aim of optimising health system performance and delivering greater value in health systems.

Indexed as

CanadaEvidence-Based PracticeHealth ExpendituresHumansInformation SystemsLeadershipLearning Health SystemOrganizational ObjectivesOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient SatisfactionPolicyCanadaFrameworkHealth system performanceLearning health systemsQuality improvementValue-based care

Identifiers

PMID31399114
PMCPMC6688264
OpenAlexW2967611184

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.