ArticleLearning health systems2024
Learning healthcare systems in cardiology: A qualitative interview study on ethical dilemmas of a learning healthcare system.
Article in Learning health systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Explainable and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology: A Narrative Review of Clinical Applications, Operational Integration, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Available guidance for ethical challenges in learning health systems: an integrative literature review.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Learning healthcare systems in cardiology: A qualitative interview study on ethical dilemmas of a learning healthcare system.Learning health systems · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Implementation of an LHS in cardiology departments presents itself with ethical challenges, including ethical review and informed consent. In this qualitative study, we investigated stakeholders' attitudes toward ethical issues regarding the implementation of an LHS in the cardiology department. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using 35 semi-structured interviews and 5 focus group interviews with 34 individuals. We interviewed cardiologists, research nurses, cardiovascular patients, ethicists, health lawyers, epidemiologists/statisticians and insurance spokespersons. Results: Respondents identified different ethical obstacles for the implementation of an LHS within the cardiology department. These obstacles were mainly on ethical oversight in LHSs; in particular, informed con sent and data ownership were discussed. In addition, respondents reported on the role of patients in LHS. Respondents described the LHS as a possibility for patients to engage in both research and care. While the LHS can promote patient engagement, patients might also be reduced to their data and are therefore at risk, according to respondents. Conclusions: Views on the ethical dilemmas of a LHSs within cardiology are diverse. Similar to the literary debate on oversight, there are different views on how ethical oversight should be regulated. This study adds to the literary debate on oversight by highlighting that patients wish to be informed about the learning activities within the LHS they participate in, and that they wish to actively contribute by sharing their data and identifying learning goals, provided that informed consent is obtained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.