Article type
Abstract
Background: Since 2017, the Swiss Learning Health System (SLHS) has facilitated the movement of research to practice and policy. Originally established as a response to national calls to strengthen health services research in Switzerland and strategically enhance the capacity of doctoral researchers, the SLHS has aimed to create continuous learning cycles through knowledge translation (KT) approaches and learning health system (LHS) science. While previous studies have explored LHS implementation within health systems and specialty/disease-focused LHSs, there is currently no information available on the perceptions and experiences of a national-level LHS, such as the SLHS.
Objective: The purpose of this study is to contribute to an understanding of how LHSs can serve as conceptual frameworks to support the development of KT platforms. By exploring lessons learned within the SLHS, the study aims to identify successes, barriers, and enabling conditions that can inform institutionalizing KT for evidence-informed health policy and decision-making (EIHPDM) as well as capacity-building strategies in similar environments.
Methods: We employed a mixed-methods approach conducted from September to December 2023, using the SLHS program aims and the Knowledge-to-Action framework to inform the study’s conceptualization. The study involved 2 workshops with >40 SLHS network members, a survey completed by 39 network members, and subsequent in-depth interviews with 12 key informants. Analysis was conducted using descriptive and thematic methods.
Results: Capacity-building efforts prompting a cultural shift by training scientists to adopt a science-policy-practice mindset was the most common success captured. The LHS and KT approaches aided in breaking down silos and encouraged community building through participatory methods. An important lesson learned is the value of cocreation involving stakeholders, especially patients, in the research process to ensure relevance, issue prioritization, and evidence utilization. However, the program faces barriers, with continuity of learning cycles being identified as a challenge. The program’s funding mechanism exposes difficulties in transferring knowledge between doctoral cohorts and maintaining continuous improvement learning cycles for each research topic.
Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the SLHS is a valued initiative for capacity building and KT while highlighting the need to strengthen learning cycles and knowledge transfer within research for EIHPDM.
Objective: The purpose of this study is to contribute to an understanding of how LHSs can serve as conceptual frameworks to support the development of KT platforms. By exploring lessons learned within the SLHS, the study aims to identify successes, barriers, and enabling conditions that can inform institutionalizing KT for evidence-informed health policy and decision-making (EIHPDM) as well as capacity-building strategies in similar environments.
Methods: We employed a mixed-methods approach conducted from September to December 2023, using the SLHS program aims and the Knowledge-to-Action framework to inform the study’s conceptualization. The study involved 2 workshops with >40 SLHS network members, a survey completed by 39 network members, and subsequent in-depth interviews with 12 key informants. Analysis was conducted using descriptive and thematic methods.
Results: Capacity-building efforts prompting a cultural shift by training scientists to adopt a science-policy-practice mindset was the most common success captured. The LHS and KT approaches aided in breaking down silos and encouraged community building through participatory methods. An important lesson learned is the value of cocreation involving stakeholders, especially patients, in the research process to ensure relevance, issue prioritization, and evidence utilization. However, the program faces barriers, with continuity of learning cycles being identified as a challenge. The program’s funding mechanism exposes difficulties in transferring knowledge between doctoral cohorts and maintaining continuous improvement learning cycles for each research topic.
Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the SLHS is a valued initiative for capacity building and KT while highlighting the need to strengthen learning cycles and knowledge transfer within research for EIHPDM.