2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multi‐level analysis of the learning health system: Integrating contributions from research on organizations and implementation

      article-commentary

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Organizations and systems that deliver health care may better adapt to rapid change in their environments by acting as learning organizations and learning health systems (LHSs). Despite widespread recognition that multilevel forces shape capacity for learning within care delivery organizations, there is no agreed‐on, comprehensive, multilevel framework to inform LHS research and practice.

          Methods

          We develop such a framework, which can enhance both research on LHSs and practical steps toward their development. We draw on existing frameworks and research within organization and implementation science and synthesize contributions from three influential frameworks: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the social‐ecological framework, and the organizational change framework. These frameworks come, respectively, from the fields of implementation science, public health, and organization science.

          Results

          Our proposed integrative framework includes both intraorganizational levels (individual, team, mid‐management, organization) and the operating and general environments in which delivery organizations operate. We stress the importance of examining interactions among influential factors both within and across system levels and focus on the effects of leadership, incentives, and culture. Additionally, we indicate that organizational learning depends substantially on internal and cross‐level alignment of these factors. We illustrate the contribution of our multilevel perspective by applying it to the analysis of three diverse implementation initiatives that aimed at specific care improvements and enduring system learning.

          Conclusions

          The framework and perspective developed here can help investigators and practitioners broadly scan and then investigate forces influencing improvement and learning and may point to otherwise unnoticed interactions among influential factors. The framework can also be used as a planning tool by managers and practitioners.

          Related collections

          Most cited references77

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

          Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

            Background In 2009, Damschroder et al. developed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which provides a comprehensive listing of constructs thought to influence implementation. This systematic review assesses the extent to which the CFIR’s use in implementation research fulfills goals set forth by Damschroder et al. in terms of breadth of use, depth of application, and contribution to implementation research. Methods We searched Scopus and Web of Science for publications that cited the original CFIR publication by Damschroder et al. (Implement Sci 4:50, 2009) and downloaded each unique result for review. After applying exclusion criteria, the final articles were empirical studies published in peer-review journals that used the CFIR in a meaningful way (i.e., used the CFIR to guide data collection, measurement, coding, analysis, and/or reporting). A framework analysis approach was used to guide abstraction and synthesis of the included articles. Results Twenty-six of 429 unique articles (6 %) met inclusion criteria. We found great breadth in CFIR application; the CFIR was applied across a wide variety of study objectives, settings, and units of analysis. There was also variation in the method of included studies (mixed methods (n = 13); qualitative (n = 10); quantitative (n = 3)). Depth of CFIR application revealed some areas for improvement. Few studies (n = 3) reported justification for selection of CFIR constructs used; the majority of studies (n = 14) used the CFIR to guide data analysis only; and few studies investigated any outcomes (n = 11). Finally, reflections on the contribution of the CFIR to implementation research were scarce. Conclusions Our results indicate that the CFIR has been used across a wide range of studies, though more in-depth use of the CFIR may help advance implementation science. To harness its potential, researchers should consider how to most meaningfully use the CFIR. Specific recommendations for applying the CFIR include explicitly justifying selection of CFIR constructs; integrating the CFIR throughout the research process (in study design, data collection, and analysis); and appropriately using the CFIR given the phase of implementation of the research (e.g., if the research is post-implementation, using the CFIR to link determinants of implementation to outcomes). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Explaining Development and Change in Organizations

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                michael.harrison@ahrq.hhs.gov
                Journal
                Learn Health Syst
                Learn Health Syst
                10.1002/(ISSN)2379-6146
                LRH2
                Learning Health Systems
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2379-6146
                02 April 2020
                April 2021
                : 5
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1002/lrh2.v5.2 )
                : e10226
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Senior Social Scientist Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Rockville Maryland USA
                [ 2 ] Professor of the Graduate School, Blue Cross of California Distinguished Professor of Health Policy and Management, Emeritus; Professor of Organization Behavior, Emeritus School of Public Health and Haas School of Business, University of California ‐ Berkeley Berkeley California USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Michael I. Harrison, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Senior Social Scientist, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA.

                Email: michael.harrison@ 123456ahrq.hhs.gov

                Article
                LRH210226
                10.1002/lrh2.10226
                8051352
                33889735
                8bfd3657-5292-480b-9a3a-6efe1881a131
                © 2020 The Authors. Learning Health Systems published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the University of Michigan.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 February 2020
                : 20 November 2019
                : 08 March 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Pages: 11, Words: 9109
                Categories
                Commentary
                Commentaries
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                April 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.2 mode:remove_FC converted:16.04.2021

                implementation science,learning health system,organizational learning

                Comments

                Comment on this article