Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35195529›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2022

The Science of Learning Health Systems: Scoping Review of Empirical Research.

Louise A Ellis, Mitchell Sarkies, Kate Churruca, Genevieve Dammery, Isabelle Meulenbroeks, Carolynn L Smith, Chiara Pomare, Zeyad Mahmoud, Yvonne Zurynski, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Louise A EllisAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6902-4578
Mitchell SarkiesAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7318-3598
Kate ChurrucaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9923-3116
Genevieve DammeryAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8188-712X
Isabelle MeulenbroeksAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9083-7845
Carolynn L SmithAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4377-5490
Chiara PomareAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9118-7207
Zeyad MahmoudAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3331-8093
Yvonne ZurynskiAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7744-8717
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0296-4957

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development and adoption of a learning health system (LHS) has been proposed as a means to address key challenges facing current and future health care systems. The first review of the LHS literature was conducted 5 years ago, identifying only a small number of published papers that 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? 5 years on from that early LHS review.

objectiveThis study performed a scoping review of empirical research within the LHS domain. Taking an "implementation science" lens, the review aims to map out the empirical research that has been conducted to date, identify limitations, and identify future directions for the field.

methodsTwo academic databases (PubMed and Scopus) were searched using the terms "learning health* system*" for papers published between January 1, 2016, to January 31, 2021, that had an explicit empirical focus on LHSs. Study 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.

resultsA 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 (53/76, 69.7%) designed to contribute to achieving an LHS. Most of these studies focused on a particular clinical context or patient population (37/53, 69.8%), with far fewer studies focusing on whole hospital systems (4/53, 7.5%) or on other broad health care systems encompassing multiple facilities (12/53, 22.6%). Over two-thirds of the program-specific studies utilized quantitative methods (37/53, 69.8%), with a smaller number utilizing qualitative methods (10/53, 18.9%) or mixed-methods designs (6/53, 11.3%). The remaining 23 studies were classified into 1 of 3 key areas: ethics, policies, and governance (10/76, 13.2%); stakeholder perspectives of LHSs (5/76, 6.6%); or LHS-specific research strategies and tools (8/76, 10.5%). Overall, relatively few studies were identified that incorporated an implementation science framework.

conclusionsAlthough there has been considerable growth in empirical applications of LHSs within the past 5 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.

Indexed as

empirical researchevaluationhealth care systemhealth systemimplementation sciencelearning health care systemslearning health systemsmedical informaticsreview

Identifiers

PMID35195529
PMCPMC8908194

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.