Frameworks, guidelines, and tools to develop a learning health system for Indigenous health: An environmental scan for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis (FNIM) peoples experience systemic health disparities within Ontario's healthcare system. Learning health systems (LHS) is a rapidly growing interdisciplinary area with the potential to address these inequitable health outcomes through a comprehensive health system that draws on science, informatics, incentives, and culture for ongoing innovation and improvement. However, global literature is in its infancy with grounding theories and principles still emerging. In addition, there is inadequate information on LHS within Ontario's health care context. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan between January and April 2021 and again in June 2022 to identify existing frameworks, guidelines, and tools for designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating an LHS. Results: We found 37 relevant sources. This paper maps the literature and identifies gaps in knowledge based on five key pillars: (a) data and evidence-driven, (b) patient-centeredness, (c) system-supported, (d) cultural competencies enabled, and (e) the learning health system. Conclusion: We provide recommendations for implementation accordingly. The literature on LHS provides a starting point to address the health disparities of FNIM peoples within the healthcare system but Indigenous community partnerships in LHS development and operation will be key to success.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".