MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

What implementation strategies and outcome measures are used to transform healthcare organizations into learning health systems? A mixed-methods review protocol

2022· other· en· W6940260950 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData extractionProtocol (science)Grey literatureHealth careInclusion (mineral)Systematic reviewScopusCritical appraisal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A learning health system (LHS) framework provides an opportunity for health system restructuring to provide value-based healthcare. However, there is little evidence showing how to effectively implement a LHS in practice. Objective A mixed-methods review is proposed to identify and synthesize the existing evidence on effective implementation strategies and outcomes of LHS in an international context. Methods A mixed-methods systematic review will be conducted following methodological guidance from Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PRISMA reporting guidelines. Six databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PAIS, Scopus and Nursing & Allied Health Database) will be searched for terms related to LHS, implementation and evaluation measures. Three reviewers will independently screen the titles, abstracts and full texts of retrieved articles. Studies will be included if they report on the implementation of a LHS in any healthcare setting. Qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods study designs will be considered for inclusion. No restrictions will be placed on language or date of publication. Grey literature will be considered for inclusion but reviews and protocol papers will be excluded. Data will be extracted from included studies using a standardized extraction form. One reviewer will extract all data and a second will verify. Critical appraisal of all included studies will be conducted by two reviewers. A convergent integration approach to data synthesis will be used, where qualitative and quantitative data will be synthesized separately and then integrated to present overarching findings. Data will be presented in tables and narratively. Conclusion This review will address a gap in the literature related to implementation of LHS. The findings from this review will provide researchers with a better understanding of how to design and implement LHS interventions. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022293348).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.256
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.251
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2560.251
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.023
Bibliometrics0.0230.016
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0090.007
Research integrity0.0130.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→