Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39107779›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024

Tools and frameworks for evaluating the implementation of learning health systems: a scoping review.

Darren Rajit, Sandra Reeder, Alison Johnson, Joanne Enticott, Helena Teede

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Darren RajitMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sandra ReederMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alison JohnsonMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Joanne Enticott *Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. joanne.enticott@monash.edu.
Helena Teede *Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite increased interest in learning health systems (LHS), a paucity of guidance and tools for evaluating LHS implementation exists. To address this, we aim to undertake a scoping review on existing tools and evaluation of exemplars of LHS implementation.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies within Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in-process that described (1) the evaluation of the implementation of an operating LHS or (2) the development of a framework or tool to facilitate this evaluation. Anima, basic research, abstracts, non-English language articles, and publications before 2018 were excluded. All study designs were considered.

findingsFrom 1300 studies initially identified, 4 were eligible, revealing three tools with nine implementation evaluation examples. The identified tools shared constructs which were evaluated, including: Stakeholders, Data, Research Evidence, Implementation, and Sociotechnical Infrastructure. However, there was divergence in evaluation methodology. Tools ranged from a five-point numerical rating system for process maturity with a radar chart called the Network Maturity Grid (NMG); the Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) LHS Logic Model, which provides a broad list of constructs and sample measures relevant to LHS operations; and finally LADDERS, a simple tool or form-based template designed for consistent evaluation over time. The NMG tool was the most mature in terms of adaptation and adoption. Notably, two (NMG and the KPWA LHS Logic Model) out of three tools conceptualized the LHS as a suite of processes and devised tools were processes that linked these constructs. IMPLICATIONS FOR TOOLKIT DEVELOPMENT: The evaluation of LHS implementation remains an under explored area of investigation, as this scoping review found only three tools for LHS implementation evaluation. Our findings indicate a need for further empirical research in this area and suggest early consensus in constructs that need to be considered during evaluation.

Indexed as

Learning Health SystemDelivery of Health CareHumansProgram EvaluationEvaluationHealthcare improvementImplementation scienceLearning health systems

Identifiers

PMID39107779
PMCPMC11302020

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.