Learning health systems using data to drive healthcare improvement and impact: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
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.
SUBMITTER: Enticott J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7932903 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10697559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLearning health systems have been gaining traction over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to understand the spread of learning health systems in primary care, including where they have been implemented, how they are operating, and potential challenges and solutions.MethodsWe completed a scoping review by systematically searching OVID Medline®, Embase®, IEEE Xplore®, and reviewing specific journals from 2007 to 2020. We also completed a Google search to identify gray literature.ResultsWe reviewed 1924 articles through our database search and 51 articles from other sources, from which we identified 21 unique learning health systems based on 62 data sources. Only one of these learning health systems was implemented exclusively in a primary care setting, where all others were integrated health systems or networks that also included other care settings. Eighteen of the 21 were in the United States. Examples of how these learning health systems were being used included real-time clinical surveillance, quality improvement initiatives, pragmatic trials at the point of care, and decision support. Many challenges and potential solutions were identified regarding data, sustainability, promoting a learning culture, prioritization processes, involvement of community, and balancing quality improvement versus research.ConclusionsWe identified 21 learning health systems, which all appear at an early stage of development, and only one was primary care only. We summarized and provided examples of integrated health systems and data networks that can be considered early models in the growing global movement to advance learning health systems in primary care.
| S-EPMC8223335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical care review is the process of retrospectively examining potential errors or gaps in medical care, aiming for future practice improvement. The objective of our systematic review is to identify the current state of care review reported in peer-reviewed publications and to identify domains that contribute to successful systems of care review. METHODS:A librarian designed and conducted a comprehensive literature search of eight electronic databases. We evaluated publications from January 1, 2000, through May 31, 2016, and identified common domains for care review. Sixteen domains were identified for further abstraction. RESULTS:We found that there were few publications that described a comprehensive care review system and more focus on individual pathways within the overall systems. There is inconsistent inclusion of the identified domains of care review. CONCLUSION:While guidelines for some aspects of care review exist and have gained traction, there is no comprehensive standardized process for care review with widespread implementation.
| S-EPMC5805667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically review the evidence base for a systems approach to healthcare design, delivery or improvement.DesignSystematic review with meta-analyses.MethodsIncluded were studies in any patients, in any healthcare setting where a systems approach was compared with usual care which reported quantitative results for any outcomes for both groups. We searched Medline, Embase, HMIC, Health Business Elite, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 28 May 2019 for relevant studies. These were screened, and data extracted independently and in duplicate. Study outcomes were stratified by study design and whether they reported patient and/or service outcomes. Meta-analysis was conducted with Revman software V.5.3 using ORs-heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics.ResultsOf 11 405 records 35 studies were included, of which 28 (80%) were before-and-after design only, five were both before-and-after and concurrent design, and two were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was heterogeneity of interventions and wide variation in reported outcome types. Almost all results showed health improvement where systems approaches were used. Study quality varied widely. Exploratory meta-analysis of these suggested favourable effects on both patient outcomes (n=14, OR=0.52 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.71) I2=91%), and service outcomes (n=18, OR=0.40 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.52) I2=97%).ConclusionsThis study suggests that a systems approaches to healthcare design and delivery results in a statistically significant improvement to both patient and service outcomes. However, better quality studies, particularly RCTs are needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017065920.
| S-EPMC7817809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth recommender systems (HRSs) offer the potential to motivate and engage users to change their behavior by sharing better choices and actionable knowledge based on observed user behavior.ObjectiveWe aim to review HRSs targeting nonmedical professionals (laypersons) to better understand the current state of the art and identify both the main trends and the gaps with respect to current implementations.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and synthesized the results. A total of 73 published studies that reported both an implementation and evaluation of an HRS targeted to laypersons were included and analyzed in this review.ResultsRecommended items were classified into four major categories: lifestyle, nutrition, general health care information, and specific health conditions. The majority of HRSs use hybrid recommendation algorithms. Evaluations of HRSs vary greatly; half of the studies only evaluated the algorithm with various metrics, whereas others performed full-scale randomized controlled trials or conducted in-the-wild studies to evaluate the impact of HRSs, thereby showing that the field is slowly maturing. On the basis of our review, we derived five reporting guidelines that can serve as a reference frame for future HRS studies. HRS studies should clarify who the target user is and to whom the recommendations apply, what is recommended and how the recommendations are presented to the user, where the data set can be found, what algorithms were used to calculate the recommendations, and what evaluation protocol was used.ConclusionsThere is significant opportunity for an HRS to inform and guide health actions. Through this review, we promote the discussion of ways to augment HRS research by recommending a reference frame with five design guidelines.
| S-EPMC8278303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDespite recent calls for home healthcare (HHC) to integrate informatics, the application of machine learning in HHC is relatively unknown. Thus, this study aimed to synthesize and appraise the literature describing the application of machine learning to predict adverse outcomes (e.g., hospitalization, mortality) using electronic health record (EHR) data in the HHC setting. Our secondary aim was to evaluate the comprehensiveness of predictors used in the machine learning algorithms guided by the Biopsychosocial Model.MethodsDuring March 2022 we conducted a literature search in four databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were 1) describing services provided in the HHC setting, 2) applying machine learning algorithms to predict adverse outcomes, defined as outcomes related to patient deterioration, 3) using EHR data and 4) focusing on the adult population. Predictors were mapped to the Biopsychosocial Model. A risk of bias analysis was conducted using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool.ResultsThe final sample included 20 studies. Eighteen studies used predictors from standardized assessments integrated in the EHR. The most common outcome of interest was hospitalization (55%), followed by mortality (25%). Psychological predictors were frequently excluded (35%). Tree based algorithms were most frequently applied (75%). Most studies demonstrated high or unclear risk of bias (75%).ConclusionFuture studies in HHC should consider incorporating machine learning algorithms into clinical decision support systems to identify patients at risk. Based on the Biopsychosocial model, psychological and interpersonal characteristics should be used along with biological characteristics to enhance risk prediction. To facilitate the widespread adoption of machine learning, stakeholders should encourage standardization in the HHC setting.
| S-EPMC9869861 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Regionalization is the integrated organization of a healthcare system, wherein regional structures are responsible for providing and administrating health services in a specific region. This method was adopted by several countries to improve the quality of provided care and to properly utilize available resources. Thus, a systematic review was conducted to verify effective interventions to improve health and management indicators within the health services regionalization. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016042314). We performed a systematic search in databases during February and March 2017 which was updated in October 2020. There was no language or date restriction. We included experimental and observational studies with interventions focused on regionalization-related actions, measures or policies aimed at decentralizing and organizing health offerings, rationalizing scarce capital and human resources, coordinating health services. A methodological assessment of the studies was performed using instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute and GRADE was also used to assess outcomes. Thirty-nine articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and sixteen interventions were identified that indicated different degrees of recommendations for improving the management of health system regionalization. The results showed that regionalization was effective under administrative decentralization and for rationalization of resources. The most investigated intervention was the strategy of concentrating procedures in high-volume hospitals, which showed positive outcomes, especially with the reduction of hospitalization days and in-hospital mortality rates. When implementing regionalization, it must be noted that it involves changes in current standards of health practice and in the distribution of health resources, especially for specialized services.
| S-EPMC7755212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHealth 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).MethodsThis 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionTo 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).
| S-EPMC9835050 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe available evidence from systematic reviews of alternative healthcare delivery arrangements relevant to high-income countries to inform decisions about healthcare system improvement.DesignScoping review of systematic reviews.Data sourcesSystematic reviews of interventions indexed in Pretty Darn Quick-Evidence.Eligibility criteriaAll English language systematic reviews evaluating the effects of alternative delivery arrangements relevant to high-income countries, published between 1 January 2012 and 20 September 2017. Eligible reviews had to summarise evidence on at least one of the following outcomes: patient outcomes, quality of care, access and/or?use of healthcare services, resource use, impacts on equity and/or?social outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes or adverse effects.Data extraction and synthesisJournal, publication year, number and design of primary studies, populations/health conditions represented and types of outcomes were extracted.ResultsOf 829 retrieved records, 531 reviews fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Almost all (93%) reviews reported on patient outcomes, while only about one-third included resource use as an outcome of interest. Just over a third (n=189, 36%) of reviews focused on alternative information and communications technology interventions (including 162 reviews on telehealth). About one-quarter (n=122, 23%) of reviews focused on alternative care coordination interventions. 15% (n=80) of reviews examined interventions involving changes to who provides care and how the healthcare workforce is managed. Few reviews investigated the effects of interventions involving changes to how and when care is delivered (n=47, 9%) or interventions addressing a goal-focused question (n=38, 7%).ConclusionA substantial body of evidence about the effects of a wide range of delivery arrangements is available to inform health system improvements. The lack of economic evaluations in the majority of systematic reviews of delivery arrangements means that the value of many of these models is unknown. This scoping review identifies evidence gaps that would be usefully addressed by future research.
| S-EPMC7170607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveUser-generated content (UGC) in online environments provides opportunities to learn an individual's health status outside of clinical settings. However, the nature of UGC brings challenges in both data collecting and processing. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the effectiveness of applying machine learning (ML) methodologies to UGC for personal health investigations.Materials and methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE Library, ACM library, AAAI library, and the ACL anthology. We focused on research articles that were published in English and in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings between 2010 and 2018. Publications that applied ML to UGC with a focus on personal health were identified for further systematic review.ResultsWe identified 103 eligible studies which we summarized with respect to 5 research categories, 3 data collection strategies, 3 gold standard dataset creation methods, and 4 types of features applied in ML models. Popular off-the-shelf ML models were logistic regression (n = 22), support vector machines (n = 18), naive Bayes (n = 17), ensemble learning (n = 12), and deep learning (n = 11). The most investigated problems were mental health (n = 39) and cancer (n = 15). Common health-related aspects extracted from UGC were treatment experience, sentiments and emotions, coping strategies, and social support.ConclusionsThe systematic review indicated that ML can be effectively applied to UGC in facilitating the description and inference of personal health. Future research needs to focus on mitigating bias introduced when building study cohorts, creating features from free text, improving clinical creditability of UGC, and model interpretability.
| S-EPMC7647332 | biostudies-literature