ArticleLearning health systems2026
Development of the Learning Health Systems Toolkit: A Collaborative Effort to Bridge Concept and Practice.
Article in Learning health systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Learning communities need access to resources to support efforts in building and sustaining learning health systems. This experience report details our development and initial assessments of the Learning Health System (LHS) Toolkit, a menu of resources purpose-designed to support users to build more proactive, responsive, and equitable systems of care by developing, implementing and sustaining LHSs. Methods: Toolkit development began in 2022, and the current version was completed in 2025. To optimize knowledge translation, we structured our methods to align with the phases of the Knowledge to Action (KTA) Model, including (1) Knowledge Inquiry; (2) Synthesis and Creation; (3) Knowledge Selection; (4) Adapting Knowledge to Local Context; (5) Assessing Barriers and Facilitators to Knowledge Use; (6) Selecting, Tailoring, and Implementing the Intervention, and (7) Monitoring Knowledge Use. Results: Development of the web-based toolkit and vetting of its contents were achieved over several phases. Feedback from toolkit users was positive overall and was integral to its development and refinement. Users from 72 countries have accessed the toolkit, although most engagement has occurred in high-income countries, chiefly the US, UK, Türkiye, Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, and New Zealand. Conclusions: The toolkit is uniquely situated to support learning communities. It includes a dynamic design, is regularly updated, and is accessible free of cost. Additionally, unlike a literature search, the toolkit is developed with usability in mind and includes tools beyond peer-reviewed literature, curated by LHS experts. The next steps are to develop and action a dissemination plan based on implementation science principles to increase the reach and adoption of the toolkit.
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.