A conceptual framework to describe and evaluate a socially accountable learning health system: Development and application in a northern, rural, and remote setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care and academic institutions are increasingly committing to social accountability, a strategic shift that requires priorities, activities, and evaluations to be co-determined with all relevant partners. Consequently, governments, accreditors, funders, and communities are calling for these institutions to communicate their progress towards social accountability. The purpose of this study was to develop a conceptual framework around a socially accountable learning health system. This article presents an integrated analysis of two studies: (i) a narrative review of 11 prominent social accountability and health services conceptual frameworks and (ii) a reflexive thematic analysis of 18 key informant interviews. Using a systematic conceptual framework development and integrated theory of change/realist evaluation methodologies, we describe a synthesis of these findings to develop a conceptual framework for describing and evaluating socially accountable health professional education. The resulting framework describes assessment phases of social accountability, transitions between phases, learning cycles, and the actors and systems that collectively mobilise social accountability at multiple levels in health and education systems. The framework can be used to evaluate interventions or characterise progress towards social accountability in different settings, as illustrated in the example at the end of the paper. The framework emphasises the significance of designing, mobilising, and evaluating social accountability as part of a contextualised learning health system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".