Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34849971›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2021

The role of co-production in Learning Health Systems.

Andreas Gremyr, Boel Andersson Gäre, Johan Thor, Glyn Elwyn, Paul Batalden, Ann-Christine Andersson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Patient-centred care: is it enough?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 'Co-Production Is Caring': Young People's Reflections on Responsible and Dialogic Co-Production in Youth Mental Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. BDJournal of affective disorders · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Coproducing data-driven organizational safety with patients: development and cognitive testing of a multisetting patient-reported safety concern tool.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Andreas GremyrDepartment of Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sahlgrenska Universitetssjukhuset Psykiatri Psykos, Göteborgsvägen 31, Mölndal, Västragötalandsregionen 431 80, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6153-2957
Boel Andersson GäreJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Barnarpsgatan 39, Jönköping, Jönköpings län 55111, Sweden.
Johan ThorGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Williamson Translational Research Building, Level 5, 1 Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.
Glyn ElwynGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Williamson Translational Research Building, Level 5, 1 Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0917-6286
Paul BataldenJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Barnarpsgatan 39, Jönköping, Jönköpings län 55111, Sweden.
Ann-Christine AnderssonJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Barnarpsgatan 39, Jönköping, Jönköpings län 55111, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0409-1985

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-production of health is defined as 'the interdependent work of users and professionals who are creating, designing, producing, delivering, assessing, and evaluating the relationships and actions that contribute to the health of individuals and populations'. It can assume many forms and include multiple stakeholders in pursuit of continuous improvement, as in Learning Health Systems (LHSs). There is increasing interest in how the LHS concept allows integration of different knowledge domains to support and achieve better health. Even if definitions of LHSs include engaging users and their family as active participants in aspects of enabling better health for individuals and populations, LHS descriptions emphasize technological solutions, such as the use of information systems. Fewer LHS texts address how interpersonal interactions contribute to the design and improvement of healthcare services.

objectiveWe examined the literature on LHS to clarify the role and contributions of co-production in LHS conceptualizations and applications.

methodFirst, we undertook a scoping review of LHS conceptualizations. Second, we compared those conceptualizations to the characteristics of LHSs first described by the US Institute of Medicine. Third, we examined the LHS conceptualizations to assess how they bring four types of value co-creation in public services into play: co-production, co-design, co-construction and co-innovation. These were used to describe core ideas, as principles, to guide development.

resultAmong 17 identified LHS conceptualizations, 3 qualified as most comprehensive regarding fidelity to LHS characteristics and their use in multiple settings: (i) the Cincinnati Collaborative LHS Model, (ii) the Dartmouth Coproduction LHS Model and (iii) the Michigan Learning Cycle Model. These conceptualizations exhibit all four types of value co-creation, provide examples of how LHSs can harness co-production and are used to identify principles that can enhance value co-creation: (i) use a shared aim, (ii) navigate towards improved outcomes, (iii) tailor feedback with and for users, (iv) distribute leadership, (v) facilitate interactions, (vi) co-design services and (vii) support self-organization.

conclusionsThe LHS conceptualizations have common features and harness co-production to generate value for individual patients as well as for health systems. They facilitate learning and improvement by integrating supportive technologies into the sociotechnical systems that make up healthcare. Further research on LHS applications in real-world complex settings is needed to unpack how LHSs are grown through coproduction and other types of value co-creation.

Indexed as

Learning Health SystemDelivery of Health CareHealth ServicesHumansInformation SystemsLeadershipco-productionhealth quality improvementhealth service researchLearning Health Systempatient-centred care

Identifiers

PMID34849971
PMCPMC8849120

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.