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

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Research Policy and Systems Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1186/s12961-024-01179-7
Darren Rajit, Sandra Reeder, Alison Johnson, Joanne Enticott, Helena Teede
{"title":"Tools and frameworks for evaluating the implementation of learning health systems: a scoping review.","authors":"Darren Rajit, Sandra Reeder, Alison Johnson, Joanne Enticott, Helena Teede","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01179-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>From 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.</p><p><strong>Implications for toolkit development: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"95"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11302020/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01179-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Despite 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.

Methods: We 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.

Findings: From 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估学习型卫生系统实施情况的工具和框架:范围审查。
导言:尽管人们对学习型卫生系统(LHS)的兴趣与日俱增,但用于评估学习型卫生系统实施情况的指南和工具却少之又少。为了解决这一问题,我们旨在对现有工具和 LHS 实施范例的评估进行一次范围界定:我们对 Scopus、EMBASE、MEDLINE 和 MEDLINE in-process 中的同行评审研究进行了范围界定审查,这些研究描述了(1)对运行中的 LHS 实施情况的评估,或(2)促进该评估的框架或工具的开发。所有研究设计均被考虑在内。所有研究设计均在考虑之列:在初步确定的 1300 项研究中,有 4 项符合条件,揭示了 3 种工具和 9 个实施评估实例。所确定的工具共享了评估的构造,包括:利益相关者、数据、研究证据:利益相关者、数据、研究证据、实施和社会技术基础设施。然而,评价方法存在差异。评估工具包括:五点数字评级系统,用于评估流程成熟度;雷达图,用于评估网络成熟度网格(NMG);华盛顿凯泽医疗机构(KPWA)的 LHS 逻辑模型,提供了与 LHS 运作相关的一系列结构和样本措施;最后是 LADDERS,一种简单的工具或基于表格的模板,用于长期一致的评估。在适应和采用方面,NMG 工具最为成熟。值得注意的是,三个工具中的两个(NMG 和 KPWA LHS 逻辑模型)将 LHS 概念化为一整套流程,并设计了将这些概念联系起来的工具:对工具包开发的启示:对地方保健系统实施情况的评估仍然是一个探索不足的调查领域,因为本次范围审查只发现了三种对地方保健系统实施情况进行评估的工具。我们的研究结果表明,有必要在这一领域开展进一步的实证研究,并就评估过程中需要考虑的结构达成早期共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
期刊最新文献
Leveraging international stakeholders' experiences with oral PrEP costs to accelerate implementation of the monthly dapivirine vaginal ring: A qualitative study. The embedded research model: an answer to the research and evaluation needs of community service organizations? Implementation of national policies and interventions (WHO Best Buys) for non-communicable disease prevention and control in Ghana: a mixed methods analysis. Policy impact of the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: global perspective and United Kingdom case study. Real-world data to improve organ and tissue donation policies: lessons learned from the tissue and organ donor epidemiology study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1