O.R. time--not beds.

J. Meakins

1997-06-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A systematic review and proposed framework for sustainable learning healthcare systems

Olga Golburean,Espen Solbakken Nordheim,Arild Faxvaag,Rune Pedersen,Ove Lintvedt,Luis Marco-Ruiz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105652

Abstract:Background: The healthcare sector is a complex domain that faces challenges in effectively learning from practices and outcome data. The Learning Health System (LHS) has emerged as a potential framework to improve healthcare by promoting continuous learning. However, its adoption remains limited, often involving only a single clinical department or a part of the LHS cycle. There is a need to gain a better understanding of implementing LHS on a larger scale. Aim: To identify complete implementations of the LHS for providing recommendations into their implementation strategies, success factors, barriers, and outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using PubMed and Scopus databases. Data from the included papers were thematically categorized into four primary areas: (1) Scale of LHS Implementation; (2) Implementation strategies and the factors that facilitated the implementation of LHS; (3) LHS outcomes; and (4) Barriers /challenges related to the LHS implementation. Results: We identified 1,279 papers, of which 37 were included in the final analysis. Barriers to implementing LHS included interoperability, data integration, electronic health records (EHRs) challenges, organizational culture, leadership, and regulatory hurdles. Most LHS initiatives lacked discussion on long-term economic sustainability models, and only 16 papers provided objective measurements of performance changes. Drawing from the findings of the included studies, this paper offers recommendations for the effective implementation of the LHS. Conclusion: The establishment of sustainable LHS necessitates several key components. First, there is a need to develop long-term economic sustainability models. Secondly, governance at the national level should promote common Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) across LHS implementations, communication channels to share tacit knowledge, efficient Institutional Review Board, ethical approval processes, and connect various initiatives currently operating independently. Lastly, the success of LHS relies not only on technological infrastructure but also on the active participation of multidisciplinary teams in decision-making and sharing of tacit knowledge.
Learning health systems in rehabilitation care - findings and recommendations from a scoping review

Z Torok,L Christophers,C Hudson,A Carroll

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.813

2023-10-01

European Journal of Public Health

Abstract:Abstract To meet the challenges posed by an aging population and changing health needs, healthcare systems require transformative action at a systemic level. One solution is to create “learning” health systems (LHS) that generate and apply evidence, innovation and quality to improve the provision of care. Given the lack of research focusing on operationalizing LHSs and the predominance of acute care studies, this scoping review aimed to fill this gap by exploring how LHS frameworks have been conceptualized and operationalized in rehabilitation organizations. The review was conducted according to the JBI guidelines and Arksey & O’Malley methodological framework. Comprehensive search was performed across 5 databases to capture the extent of the literature on this topic specific to rehabilitation. Following screening and data extraction, qualitative content analysis and thematic mapping was employed to explore the selected studies (n = 26). Results were reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies conceptualised LHS as organizational infrastructure that supports continuous learning by integrating clinical care and research. It aims generate new knowledge by capturing data from every clinical encounter and applying it to practice through iterative learning cycles, characterized by three phases: Data to Knowledge, Knowledge to Performance, and Performance to Data. Four themes emerged regarding the operationalization of LHS in rehabilitation: creating a functioning data infrastructure; facilitating research; promoting an organizational culture of learning; and person-centredness. This study is the first scoping review on LHSs in the context of rehabilitation, employing a systematic and rigorous process to capture the relevant literature. The review identified key transformational steps to become a LHS e.g., generation, dissemination and implementation of new institutional knowledge and early stakeholder engagement. Findings can be applied across non-acute health settings. Key messages • This is the first scoping review on LHSs in the context of rehabilitation. • The findings will aid organisations in non-acute health settings with the transformational process of becoming LHSs.

public, environmental & occupational health
Implementation model for a national learning health system (IMPLEMENT-National LHS): a concept analysis and systematic review protocol

Jean-Baptiste Gartner,Boutheina Benharbit,Géraldine Layani,Maxime Sasseville,Célia Lemaire,Frédéric Bergeron,Catherine Wilhelmy,Matthew Menear,André Côté

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073767

IF: 3.006

2023-10-31

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction: Despite efforts and repeated calls to improve the organisation and quality of healthcare and services, and in view of the many challenges facing health systems, the results and capacity to adapt and integrate innovations and new knowledge remain suboptimal. Learning health systems (LHS) may be an effective model to accelerate the application of research for real quality improvement in healthcare. However, while recognising the enormous potential of LHS, the literature suggests the model remains more of an aspiration than a reality. Methods and analysis: To reach a fine understanding of the implementation of the concepts involved in LHS, we will use a hybrid method which combines concept analyses with systematic review methodology. We will use a two-step analysis, a content analysis to analyse the definitions, uses and attributes of the concept and a systematic review to analyse the concept's implementation mechanisms. We will search eight databases and grey literature and present a broad synthesis of the available evidence regarding design, implementation and evaluation of LHS in a multilevel perspective. We will follow the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement for conducting and reporting a systematic review. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria followed by full-text screening of potentially relevant articles for final inclusion decision. Conflicts will be resolved with a senior author. We will include published primary studies that use qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. The assessment of risk of bias will be made using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Ethics and dissemination: This systematic review is exempt from ethics approval. The results formulated will highlight evidence-based interventions that support the implementation of a national LHS. They will be of particular interest to decision makers, researchers, managers, clinicians and patients allowing finally to implement the promising proposal of LHSs at national scale. Prospero registration number: CRD42023393565.
Utilitarian mechanism design for an excludable public good

M. Hellwig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1393728

2009-04-01

Abstract:This paper studies the design of optimal utilitarian mechanisms for an excludable public good. Excludability provides a basis for making people pay for admissions; the payments can be used for redistribution and/or funding. Whereas previous work assumed that admissions are governed by the payment or nonpayment of a price, this paper allows for arbitrary admission rules. With sufficient inequality aversion, nondegenerate randomization in admissions is shown to be desirable for certain model specifications, with and without participation constraints. The paper also gives a sufficient condition on the distribution of preferences under which randomization is undesirable.
Evaluation frameworks in health services: An integrative review of use, attributes and elements

Natalie Bradford,Shirley Chambers,Adrienne Hudson,Jacqui Jauncey-Cooke,Robyn Penny,Carol Windsor,Patsy Yates

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14842

Abstract:Aims and objective: To synthesise the evidence on the use of evaluation frameworks by nurses and midwives in research designed to improve healthcare services and practice. A secondary aim was to identify the attributes and elements of evaluation frameworks. Background: Evaluation is an integral component of any initiative to improve outcomes or change clinical practice. Yet often an evaluation may not yield the information required to sustain or integrate an initiative into practice. Evaluation frameworks can support effective evaluations, but there is a lack of consensus regarding elements and attributes of frameworks that support use. Methods: We undertook an integrative review to synthesise the use of evaluation frameworks in practice guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis flow diagram and checklist 2009 (Supporting Information File 4). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018087033). A broad range of electronic databases were systematically searched using keywords. Findings: Twenty-five papers were included from a diverse range of clinical areas and across high-, middle- and low-income nations. Twenty of the research projects had used nine existing frameworks, and five had developed an evaluation specific to an initiative. Frameworks supported the processes of evaluation and made them more meaningful by simplifying a complex process (providing structure and guidance for the evaluation processes); identifying and including stakeholders; explaining reasons for outcomes; generating transferable lessons; and identifying the mechanisms driving or inhibiting change. Conclusion: Nurses and midwives reported that frameworks were useful in undertaking evaluations. Each framework had positive attributes and missing or confusing elements. When undertaking an evaluation, it is pertinent to review the elements and attributes of a framework to ensure it includes evaluation measures that are relevant to specific projects. Relevance to clinical practice: Nurses are actively involved in evaluation of clinical practice. This review identifies important elements to consider when choosing a framework for evaluation.
Learning health systems using data to drive healthcare improvement and impact: a systematic review

Joanne Enticott,Alison Johnson,Helena Teede

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06215-8

2021-03-05

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:Abstract Background The transition to electronic health records offers the potential for big data to drive the next frontier in healthcare improvement. Yet there are multiple barriers to harnessing the power of data. The Learning Health System (LHS) has emerged as a model to overcome these barriers, yet there remains limited evidence of impact on delivery or outcomes of healthcare. Objective To gather evidence on the effects of LHS data hubs or aligned models that use data to deliver healthcare improvement and impact. Any reported impact on the process, delivery or outcomes of healthcare was captured. Methods Systematic review from CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Medline in-process and Web of Science PubMed databases, using learning health system, data hub, data-driven, ehealth, informatics, collaborations, partnerships, and translation terms. English-language, peer-reviewed literature published between January 2014 and Sept 2019 was captured, supplemented by a grey literature search. Eligibility criteria included studies of LHS data hubs that reported research translation leading to health impact. Results Overall, 1076 titles were identified, with 43 eligible studies, across 23 LHS environments. Most LHS environments were in the United States ( n = 18) with others in Canada, UK, Sweden and Australia/NZ. Five (21.7%) produced medium-high level of evidence, which were peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions LHS environments are producing impact across multiple continents and settings.

health care sciences & services
Available tools to evaluate digital health literacy and engagement with eHealth resources: A scoping review

Alice Faux-Nightingale,Fraser Philp,Darren Chadwick,Baldev Singh,Anand Pandyan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10380

IF: 3.776

2022-08-23

Heliyon

Abstract:Background: As eHealth and use of information and communication technologies (ICT) within healthcare becomes widespread, it is important to ensure that these forms of healthcare are accessible to the users. One factor that is key to accessing eHealth is digital health literacy. Objectives: This scoping review assesses available tools that can be used to evaluate digital health literacy. Methods: A systematic literature search was made in MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsychInfo, Ageline, AMED, and APA PsychArticles to present the tools currently in use to assess digital health literacy. A qualitative synthesis of the evidence was carried out using a data charting form created for this review. Extracted data included details of the population of investigation and digital health literacy tool used. A report was produced following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results: In total, 53 papers with adult participants and 3 with adolescent participants (aged between 12 and 19 years) were included in the scoping review. 5 questionnaires were identified that measured digital health literacy or attitudes towards the internet, of which the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was the most commonly used questionnaire for both adults and children. Two children's questionnaires were often accompanied by a second task to verify the accuracy of the responses to the eHEALS questions. Conclusions: eHEALS is the most commonly used method to assess digital health literacy and assess whether an individual is able to engage actively with eHealthcare or virtual resources. However, care needs to be taken to ensure that its administration does not exclude digitally disadvantaged groups from completing it. Future research would benefit from assessing whether digital health literacy tools are appropriate for use in clinical settings, working to ensure that any scales developed in this area are practical and can be used to support the allocation of resources to ensure that people are able to access healthcare equitably.
Facilitators of and barriers to patient and public involvement in building learning health systems in community health services settings: a scoping review protocol

Lillian Hung,Karen Lok Yi Wong,Ian Chan,Krisztina Vasarhelyi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073837

IF: 3.006

2023-09-12

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction: The development of learning health systems (LHSs) has often focused on optimally leveraging data. More attention should be paid to patient and public involvement or community engagement in forming learning communities that work together to build LHS. This scoping review aims to identify facilitators of and barriers to involving patients and the public in building LHSs in community health services settings. Methods and analysis: We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review methodology. We will review literature in English published from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2022. The databases that will be searched are MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, AgeLine, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Key inclusion and exclusion criteria include the following: we will only consider a learning community in a community health services context (eg, home care, long-term care, primary care); we will exclude literature on acute care settings; and we will consider any research designs apart from big data analytics. We will review all sources, including university student theses and dissertations. The review will proceed in three steps: (1) we will identify keywords and index terms from the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases; (2) using the keywords and index terms identified in step (1), we will search other databases and (3) we will handsearch the reference lists of the selected literature and will search for grey literature using Google. Two research assistants will screen the titles and abstracts separately, with reference to the inclusion criteria. Two researchers will then assess the full text of selected studies, also in reference to the inclusion criteria. We will present the findings in a charting table and provide a narrative summary. Ethics and dissemination: This work does not require ethics approval because the data for this scoping review are publicly available. The findings will be presented in a journal article and at conferences.
A systematic scoping review and content analysis of organizational health literacy responsiveness assessment tools

Teresa Cheng-Chieh Chu,Rebecca K Kelly,Yih-Jin Hu,Shandell Elmer,Rosie Nash

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae064

2024-06-01

Abstract:The characteristics of health literate organizations have been variously described in recognition that it is important for organizations to respond to the diversity of people's health literacy strengths and challenges. A systematic scoping review was conducted to identify, assess and classify international self-assessment tools aimed at measuring the capability of organizations to embody health literate characteristics. Following the JBI Scoping Manual, a search was conducted in six databases and identified 2693 articles. After screening, 16 studies published between 2007 and 2023 across eight countries were eligible for inclusion. Results were summarized and a finite list of items from existing tools was generated. Content analysis was performed to classify these items. Whilst most assessment tools in the included studies were healthcare-focused, other settings included schools and government departments. The 16 assessment tools included a total of 661 items, and 647 items were retained that met the definition of health literacy responsiveness. Items were classified into six domains (communication; navigation of resources; culture; policies and practice; involvement or engagement and workforce development), with high agreement between two researchers (91.5%). The 647 items were reviewed to exclude items that were too contextually specific, focused solely on service users, were too broad or had suitable alternatives; 210 items were finally retained. This research is two-fold: provides a synthesis of existing organizational health literacy responsiveness assessment tools across settings; and provides a list of items, which will be essential to developing context specific assessment tools through Delphi methods in the future.
Stimulus and recognition thresholds for the basic tastes in deionized water Are the recommendations for citric acid too high ?

Karolin Hoehl,M. Busch-Stockfisch

Abstract:Introduction The international standard ISO 3972 [1] and the corresponding national DIN standard [2] provide guidelines for examining human taste sensitivity in the context of sensory trials. For example, recommendations are given on the chemicals and reagents to be added, e. g., the type of water used for preparing solutions of taste stimuli. The water should be “neutral, tasteless, still and odourless, preferably of known hardness” [1]. For international taste research, deionized water is mostly used to prepare the solutions (see e.g. [3–6]). This ensures that comparability betwen different study centres is ensured and that the composition of the water is relatively stable – independent of the site of production. Nevertheless, the evaluation of the results of a large study [7] raised doubts as to whether deionized water is suited for the measurement of taste sensitivity for sour.1 It is thought that either (a) the citric acid concentration would have to be adjusted or (b) another type of water would have to be used to dissolve the substance. Moreover, ISO 3972 [1] (with the corrigendum of 2012 [8]), as well as the corresponding national DIN ISO 3972 [2] refer – in contrast to the previous versions [9, 10] – to lower thresholds for bitter and sour in demineralised water, without explaining what is meant by “lower” or giving detailed references to alternative concentrations for the substances. The present study therefore investigates the thresholds for the five basic tastes (sweet, sour, salty, bitter and umami), as well as the metallic sensation, in deionized water. In addition, various citric acid concentrations in deionized water were examined with respect to taste sensitivity in the threshold test. Summary
Evaluation framework study assessing the role, applicability and adherence to good practice of planning support tools for allocation of development aid for health in low-income and middle-income countries

Itamar Megiddo,Shona Blair,Davood Sabei,Francis Ruiz,Alexander D Morton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069590

IF: 3.006

2023-07-12

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives: Allocation of development aid for health is controversial and challenging. In recent years, several planning-software tools have promised to help decision-makers align resource allocation with their objectives, more clearly connect prioritisation to evidence and local circumstances, and increase transparency and comparability. We aim to explore these tools to provide insight into their fitness for purpose and suggest future directions to fulfil that promise. Design: We identified seven tools that met the inclusion criteria and developed an evaluation framework to compare them along two dimensions for assessing fitness for purpose: ability to produce analyses adhering to principles laid out in the International Decisions Support Initiative (iDSI) Reference Case for health economic evaluations; and resources required, including expertise and time. We extracted information from documentation and tool use and sent this information to tool developers for confirmation. Results: We categorise the tools into evidence-generating ones, evidence-syntheses ones and process support ones. Tools' fitness for purpose varies by the context, technical capacity and time limitation. The tools adhere to several reference case principles but often not to all of them. The source and underlying assumptions of prepopulated data are often opaque. Comparing vertical interventions across diseases and health system strengthening ones remains challenging. Conclusions: The plethora of tools that aid priority setting in different ways is encouraging. Developers and users should place further emphasis on their ability to produce analyses that adhere to prioritisation principles. Opportunities for further development include using evidence-generating tools and multicriteria decision analysis approaches complimentarily. However, maintaining tool simplicity should also be considered to allow wider access.
Integrating Lean Thinking and Implementation Science Determinants Checklists for Quality Improvement: A Scoping Review

Taylor Standiford,Marisa L. Conte,John E. Billi,Anne Sales,Geoffrey D. Barnes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860619879746

2019-10-04

American Journal of Medical Quality

Abstract:It is not known how often lean tools and implementation determinants frameworks or checklists are used concurrently in health care quality improvement activities. The authors systematically reviewed the literature for studies that used a lean tool along with an implementation science determinants framework (January 1999 through August 2018). Seven studies (8 publications) were identified, inclusive of 2 protocols and 6 research articles across multiple continents. All included studies used the consolidated framework for implementation research as their implementation science determinants framework. Lean tools included in more than 1 publication were process mapping (4 publications), process redesign (3 publications), and 5S standardization (2 publications). Only 1 study proposed using a lean tool concurrently with an implementation science determinants framework in the design and execution of the QI project. Few published studies utilize both an implementation science determinants framework or checklist and 1 or more lean tool in their study design.

health care sciences & services
Implementing learning into practice from continuous professional development activities: a scoping review of health professionals' views and experiences

Heba Al-Omary,Abderrezzaq Soltani,Derek Stewart,Zachariah Nazar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06016-7

2024-09-20

Abstract:Purpose: Continuing professional development (CPD) is an approach for health professionals to preserve and expand their knowledge, skills, and performance, and can contribute to improving delivery of care. However, evidence indicates that simply delivering CPD activities to health professionals does not lead to a change in practice. This review aimed to collate, summarize, and categorize the literature that reported the views and experiences of health professionals on implementing into practice their learning from CPD activities. Methods: This review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual methodology for scoping reviews. Three databases, PubMed, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), were systematically searched in February 2023 for articles published since inception. Two independent reviewers screened the articles against the inclusion criteria, and completed the data extraction. Data were summarized quantitatively, and the findings relating to views and experiences were categorized into challenges and facilitators. Results: Thirteen articles were included. Implementation of learning was not the primary focus in the majority of studies. Studies were published between 2008-2022; the majority were conducted in North America and nurses were the most common stakeholder group among Healthcare Professionals (HCPs). Five studies adopted qualitative methods, four quantitative studies, and four mixed-methods studies. The reported barriers of implementation included lack of time and human resource; the facilitators included the nature of the training, course content and opportunity for communal learning. Conclusion: This review highlights a gap in the literature. Available studies indicate some barriers for health professionals to implement their learning from CPD activities into their practice. Further studies, underpinned with appropriate theory and including all relevent stakeholders are required to investigate strategies that may facilitate the integration of learning from CPD into routine practice.
Tools for self- or peer-assessment of interprofessional competencies of healthcare students: a scoping review

Sharon Brownie,Jia Rong Yap,Denise Blanchard,Issac Amankwaa,Amy Pearce,Kesava Kovanur Sampath,Ann-Rong Yan,Patrea Andersen,Patrick Broman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1449715

2024-10-02

Abstract:Introduction: Healthcare professionals are expected to demonstrate competence in the effective management of chronic disease and long-term health and rehabilitation needs. Care provided by groups of collaborating professionals is currently well recognized as a more effective way to support people living with these conditions than routine, single-profession clinical encounters. Clinical learning contexts provide hands-on opportunities to develop the interprofessional competencies essential for health professional students in training; however, suitable assessment tools are needed to support student attainment of interprofessional competencies with self-assessment espoused as an important component of learning. Method: A structured approach was taken to locate and review existing tools used for the self-assessment and peer assessment of students' competencies relevant to interprofessional practice. Results: A range of self- and/or peer assessment approaches are available, including formally structured tools and less structured processes inclusive of focus groups and reflection. Discussion: The identified tools will usefully inform discussion regarding interprofessional competency self- and peer assessment options by healthcare students participating in a broad range of clinical learning contexts. Conclusion: Self- and/or peer assessment is a useful approach for those seeking to effectively enhance interprofessional learning and measure the attainment of related competencies.
The utility of website-based quality improvement tools for health professionals: a systematic review

Georgie Tran,Bridget Kelly,Megan Hammersley,Jennifer Norman,Anthony Okely

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae068

2024-07-26

Abstract:As technology continues to advance, it is important to understand how website-based tools can support quality improvement. Website-based tools refer to resources such as toolkits that users can access and use autonomously through a dedicated website. This review examined how website-based tools can support healthcare professionals with quality improvement, including the optimal processes used to develop tools and the elements of an effective tool. A systematic search of seven databases was conducted to include articles published between January 2012 and January 2024. Articles were included if they were peer reviewed, written in English, based in health settings, and reported the development or evaluation of a quality improvement website-based tool for professionals. A narrative synthesis was conducted using NVivo. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. All papers were independently screened and coded by two authors using a six-phase conceptual framework by Braun and Clarke. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Themes identified were tool development processes, quality improvement mechanisms and barriers and facilitators to tool usage. Digitalizing existing quality improvement processes (n = 7), identifying gaps in practice (n = 6), and contributing to professional development (n = 3) were common quality improvement aims. Tools were associated with the reported enhancement of accuracy and efficiency in clinical tasks, improvement in adherence to guidelines, facilitation of reflective practice, and provision of tailored feedback for continuous quality improvement. Common features were educational resources (n = 7) and assisting the user to assess current practices against standards/recommendations (n = 6), which supported professionals in achieving better clinical outcomes, increased professional satisfaction and streamlined workflow in various settings. Studies reported facilitators to tool usage including relevance to practice, accessibility, and facilitating multidisciplinary action, making these tools practical and time-efficient for healthcare. However, barriers such as being time consuming, irrelevant to practice, difficult to use, and lack of organizational engagement were reported. Almost all tools were co-developed with stakeholders. The co-design approaches varied, reflecting different levels of stakeholder engagement and adoption of co-design methodologies. It is noted that the quality of included studies was low. These findings offer valuable insights for future development of quality improvement website-based tools in healthcare. Recommendations include ensuring tools are co-developed with healthcare professionals, focusing on practical usability and addressing common barriers to enhance engagement and effectiveness in improving healthcare quality. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to provide objective evidence of tool efficacy.
Evaluation of health recommender systems: a scoping review protocol

Ananthakrishnan,A.,Milne-Ives,M.,Shankar,R.,Meinert,E.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083359

IF: 3.006

2024-10-08

BMJ Open

Abstract:Background People increasingly rely on online health information for their health-related decision-making. Given the overwhelming amount of information available, the risk of misinformation is high. Health recommender systems, which recommend personalised health-related information or interventions using intelligent algorithms, have the potential to address this issue. Many such systems have been developed and evaluated individually, but there is a need to synthesise the evaluation findings to identify gaps and ensure that future recommender systems are designed to have a positive impact on health or target behaviours. Objective The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the state of the literature evaluating health recommender systems and highlight lessons learnt, methodological considerations and gaps in current research. Methods and analysis The review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and the Population, Concept, and Context frameworks. Five databases (PubMED, ACM Digital Library Full-Text Collection, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science and ScienceDirect) will be searched for studies published in English that evaluate at least one health recommender system using search terms following the themes reflecting digital health, recommendation systems and evaluations of efficacy and impact. After using EndNote 21 for initial screening, two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts of the references, and then extract data from included studies related to the recommender system characteristics, evaluation design and evaluation findings into a predetermined form. A descriptive analysis will be conducted to provide an overview of the literature; key themes and gaps in the literature will be discussed. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as data will be obtained from already published sources. Findings from this study will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

medicine, general & internal
Conceptualizing learning health systems: A mapping review

Josefien de Bruin,Cheryl Bos,Jeroen Nathan Struijs,Hanneke Wil-Trees Drewes,Caroline Astrid Baan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10311

2022-06-02

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).
Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review

Sarah Louise Elin Roberts,Andy Healey,Nick Sevdalis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0901-7

2019-07-15

Implementation Science

Abstract:<h3 class="Heading">Background</h3><p class="Para">Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research.</p><h3 class="Heading">Method</h3><p class="Para">A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. s were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework.</p><h3 class="Heading">Results</h3><p class="Para">Thirty studies were included—all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (<em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">N</em> = 16) and implementation (<em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">N</em> = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (<em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">N</em> = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically—of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated 'good' on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates.</p><h3 class="Heading">Conclusions</h3><p class="Para">The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour.</p>

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts

Kelly J Mrklas,Jamie M Boyd,Sumair Shergill,Sera Merali,Masood Khan,Cheryl Moser,Lorelli Nowell,Amelia Goertzen,Liam Swain,Lisa M Pfadenhauer,Kathryn M Sibley,Mathew Vis-Dunbar,Michael D Hill,Shelley Raffin-Bouchal,Marcello Tonelli,Ian D Graham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00958-y

2023-12-22

Abstract:Background: Health research partnership approaches have grown in popularity over the past decade, but the systematic evaluation of their outcomes and impacts has not kept equal pace. Identifying partnership assessment tools and key partnership characteristics is needed to advance partnerships, partnership measurement, and the assessment of their outcomes and impacts through systematic study. Objective: To locate and identify globally available tools for assessing the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships. Methods: We searched four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL + , PsychINFO) with an a priori strategy from inception to June 2021, without limits. We screened studies independently and in duplicate, keeping only those involving a health research partnership and the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts. Reviewer disagreements were resolved by consensus. Study, tool and partnership characteristics, and emerging research questions, gaps and key recommendations were synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results: We screened 36 027 de-duplicated citations, reviewed 2784 papers in full text, and kept 166 studies and three companion reports. Most studies originated in North America and were published in English after 2015. Most of the 205 tools we identified were questionnaires and surveys targeting researchers, patients and public/community members. While tools were comprehensive and usable, most were designed for single use and lacked validity or reliability evidence. Challenges associated with the interchange and definition of terms (i.e., outcomes, impacts, tool type) were common and may obscure partnership measurement and comparison. Very few of the tools identified in this study overlapped with tools identified by other, similar reviews. Partnership tool development, refinement and evaluation, including tool measurement and optimization, are key areas for future tools-related research. Conclusion: This large scoping review identified numerous, single-use tools that require further development and testing to improve their psychometric and scientific qualities. The review also confirmed that the health partnership research domain and its measurement tools are still nascent and actively evolving. Dedicated efforts and resources are required to better understand health research partnerships, partnership optimization and partnership measurement and evaluation using valid, reliable and practical tools that meet partners' needs.
A quasi-lumped model for the peripheral distortion of the arterial pulse.

P. A. Voltairas,A. Charalambopoulos,D. Fotiadis,L. Michalis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2012.9.175

2011-12-01

Abstract:As blood circulates through the arterial tree, the flow and pressure pulse distort. Principal factors to this distortion are reflections form arterial bifurcations and the viscous character of the flow of the blood. Both of them are expounded in the literature and included in our analysis. The nonlinearities of inertial effects are usually taken into account in numerical simulations, based on Navier-Stokes like equations. Nevertheless, there isn't any qualitative, analytical formula, which examines the role of blood's inertia on the distortion of the pulse. We derive such an analytical nonlinear formula. It emanates from a generalized Bernoulli's equation for an an-harmonic, linear, viscoelastic, Maxwell fluid flow in a linear, viscoelastic, Kelvin-Voigt, thin, cylindrical vessel. We report that close to the heart, convection effects related to the change in the magnitude of the velocity of blood dominate the alteration of the shape of the pressure pulse, while at remote sites of the vascular tree, convection of vorticity, related to the change in the direction of the velocity of blood with respect to a mean axial flow, prevails. A quantitative comparison between the an-harmonic theory and related pressure measurements is also performed.

O.R. time--not beds.

A systematic review and proposed framework for sustainable learning healthcare systems

Learning health systems in rehabilitation care - findings and recommendations from a scoping review

Implementation model for a national learning health system (IMPLEMENT-National LHS): a concept analysis and systematic review protocol

Utilitarian mechanism design for an excludable public good

Evaluation frameworks in health services: An integrative review of use, attributes and elements

Learning health systems using data to drive healthcare improvement and impact: a systematic review

Available tools to evaluate digital health literacy and engagement with eHealth resources: A scoping review

Facilitators of and barriers to patient and public involvement in building learning health systems in community health services settings: a scoping review protocol

A systematic scoping review and content analysis of organizational health literacy responsiveness assessment tools

Stimulus and recognition thresholds for the basic tastes in deionized water Are the recommendations for citric acid too high ?

Evaluation framework study assessing the role, applicability and adherence to good practice of planning support tools for allocation of development aid for health in low-income and middle-income countries

Integrating Lean Thinking and Implementation Science Determinants Checklists for Quality Improvement: A Scoping Review

Implementing learning into practice from continuous professional development activities: a scoping review of health professionals' views and experiences

Tools for self- or peer-assessment of interprofessional competencies of healthcare students: a scoping review

The utility of website-based quality improvement tools for health professionals: a systematic review

Evaluation of health recommender systems: a scoping review protocol

Conceptualizing learning health systems: A mapping review

Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review

A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts

A quasi-lumped model for the peripheral distortion of the arterial pulse.