Conceptualizing learning health systems: A mapping review

Abstract Introduction Health systems worldwide face the challenge of increasing population health with high‐quality care and reducing health care expenditure growth. In pursuit for a solution, regional cross‐sectoral partnerships aim to reorganize and integrate services across public health, health...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Josefien deBruin, Cheryl Bos, Jeroen Nathan Struijs, Hanneke Wil‐Trees Drewes, Caroline Astrid Baan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023-01-01
Series:Learning Health Systems
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10311
_version_ 1797955172952965120
author Josefien deBruin
Cheryl Bos
Jeroen Nathan Struijs
Hanneke Wil‐Trees Drewes
Caroline Astrid Baan
author_facet Josefien deBruin
Cheryl Bos
Jeroen Nathan Struijs
Hanneke Wil‐Trees Drewes
Caroline Astrid Baan
author_sort Josefien deBruin
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Introduction Health systems worldwide face the challenge of increasing population health with high‐quality care and reducing health care expenditure growth. In pursuit for a solution, regional cross‐sectoral partnerships aim to reorganize and integrate services across public health, health care and social care. Although the complexity of regional partnerships demands an incremental strategy, it is yet not known how learning works within these partnerships. To understand learning in regional cross‐sectoral partnerships for health, this study aims to map the concept Learning Health System (LHS). Methods This mapping review used a qualitative text analysis approach. A literature search was conducted in Embase and was limited to English‐language papers published in the period 2015‐2020. Title‐abstract screening was performed using established exclusion criteria. During full‐text screening, we combined deductive and inductive coding. The concept LHS was disentangled into aims, design elements, and process of learning. Data extraction and analysis were performed in MAX QDA 2020. Results In total, 155 articles were included. All articles used the LHS definition of the Institute of Medicine. The interpretation of the concept LHS varied widely. The description of LHS contained 25 highly connected aims. In addition, we identified nine design elements. Most elements were described similarly, only the interpretation of stakeholders, data infrastructure and data varied. Furthermore, we identified three types of learning: learning as 1) interaction between clinical practice and research; 2) a circular process of converting routine care data to knowledge, knowledge to performance; and performance to data; and 3) recurrent interaction between stakeholders to identify opportunities for change, to reveal underlying values, and to evaluate processes. Typology 3 was underrepresented, and the three types of learning rarely occurred simultaneously. Conclusion To understand learning within regional cross‐sectoral partnerships for health, we suggest to specify LHS‐aim(s), operationalize design elements, and choose deliberately appropriate learning type(s).
first_indexed 2024-04-10T23:29:01Z
format Article
id doaj.art-ea79227f3ed84ad69bd7939fa91b9aad
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2379-6146
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-10T23:29:01Z
publishDate 2023-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Learning Health Systems
spelling doaj.art-ea79227f3ed84ad69bd7939fa91b9aad2023-01-12T10:42:28ZengWileyLearning Health Systems2379-61462023-01-0171n/an/a10.1002/lrh2.10311Conceptualizing learning health systems: A mapping reviewJosefien deBruin0Cheryl Bos1Jeroen Nathan Struijs2Hanneke Wil‐Trees Drewes3Caroline Astrid Baan4Department of Quality of Care and Health Economics National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Center for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services Bilthoven the NetherlandsDepartment of Quality of Care and Health Economics National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Center for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services Bilthoven the NetherlandsDepartment of Quality of Care and Health Economics National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Center for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services Bilthoven the NetherlandsDepartment of Quality of Care and Health Economics National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Center for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services Bilthoven the NetherlandsTranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences Tilburg University Tilburg the NetherlandsAbstract Introduction Health systems worldwide face the challenge of increasing population health with high‐quality care and reducing health care expenditure growth. In pursuit for a solution, regional cross‐sectoral partnerships aim to reorganize and integrate services across public health, health care and social care. Although the complexity of regional partnerships demands an incremental strategy, it is yet not known how learning works within these partnerships. To understand learning in regional cross‐sectoral partnerships for health, this study aims to map the concept Learning Health System (LHS). Methods This mapping review used a qualitative text analysis approach. A literature search was conducted in Embase and was limited to English‐language papers published in the period 2015‐2020. Title‐abstract screening was performed using established exclusion criteria. During full‐text screening, we combined deductive and inductive coding. The concept LHS was disentangled into aims, design elements, and process of learning. Data extraction and analysis were performed in MAX QDA 2020. Results In total, 155 articles were included. All articles used the LHS definition of the Institute of Medicine. The interpretation of the concept LHS varied widely. The description of LHS contained 25 highly connected aims. In addition, we identified nine design elements. Most elements were described similarly, only the interpretation of stakeholders, data infrastructure and data varied. Furthermore, we identified three types of learning: learning as 1) interaction between clinical practice and research; 2) a circular process of converting routine care data to knowledge, knowledge to performance; and performance to data; and 3) recurrent interaction between stakeholders to identify opportunities for change, to reveal underlying values, and to evaluate processes. Typology 3 was underrepresented, and the three types of learning rarely occurred simultaneously. Conclusion To understand learning within regional cross‐sectoral partnerships for health, we suggest to specify LHS‐aim(s), operationalize design elements, and choose deliberately appropriate learning type(s).https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10311conceptualizationlearning health systemtypes of learning
spellingShingle Josefien deBruin
Cheryl Bos
Jeroen Nathan Struijs
Hanneke Wil‐Trees Drewes
Caroline Astrid Baan
Conceptualizing learning health systems: A mapping review
Learning Health Systems
conceptualization
learning health system
types of learning
title Conceptualizing learning health systems: A mapping review
title_full Conceptualizing learning health systems: A mapping review
title_fullStr Conceptualizing learning health systems: A mapping review
title_full_unstemmed Conceptualizing learning health systems: A mapping review
title_short Conceptualizing learning health systems: A mapping review
title_sort conceptualizing learning health systems a mapping review
topic conceptualization
learning health system
types of learning
url https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10311
work_keys_str_mv AT josefiendebruin conceptualizinglearninghealthsystemsamappingreview
AT cherylbos conceptualizinglearninghealthsystemsamappingreview
AT jeroennathanstruijs conceptualizinglearninghealthsystemsamappingreview
AT hannekewiltreesdrewes conceptualizinglearninghealthsystemsamappingreview
AT carolineastridbaan conceptualizinglearninghealthsystemsamappingreview