ArticleLearning health systems2025
Moving from a registry to a learning health system: A case study of a Dutch prostate cancer registry.
Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Moving from a registry to a learning health system: A case study of a Dutch prostate cancer registry.Learning health systems · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Learning health systems (LHSs) are systems that seamlessly embed continuous quality improvement based on real-world data. To establish LHSs, several infrastructures need to be in place. Registries already have part(s) of this infrastructure and could therefore be leveraged to establish LHSs. This study aims to identify key factors facilitating the transition of registries into LHS to support continuous learning from real-world data. Methods: Eleven interviews with 12 stakeholders, including medical specialists and nonmedical stakeholders, were conducted in the context of a prostate cancer registry. Findings were coded deductively based on seven previously identified facilitators for learning: complexity, relative advantage, compatibility, credibility, social impact, actionability, and resource match. These facilitators cover technical, social, and organizational aspects. An inductive phase followed to pinpoint factors for continuous learning and LHSs. Subsequently, two focus groups were conducted to ensure accurate interpretation of findings, and five expert panels to provide additional context. Results: Complexity within healthcare systems emerged as a significant challenge, attributed to multiple stakeholders and the rapidly changing healthcare landscape. The advantage of LHSs is the timely availability of population-based data for real-time care adjustments. Compatibility of the system with stakeholders' needs was considered pivotal requiring a relatively flexible infrastructure. Credibility of data and results was supported by creating transparent processes in which stakeholders could review data from their own patient population. Social influences, including interpersonal trust and engaged leadership, fostered collaboration within LHSs. Actionability of the findings and resource match were vital for knowledge translation and sustainability. Conclusion: Our findings provide practical recommendations to support registries in transitioning towards LHSs by leveraging and expanding their infrastructure for continuous learning. We identified technical, interpersonal, and organizational factors that facilitate continuous and rapid learning using real-world data, create transparent and collaborative infrastructures, and help to navigate the complexity of the healthcare system.
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.