Back

Influence of organisational culture on knowledge generation and application within Learning Health Systems: a scoping review protocol

Yoon, S. Y.; Bercades, G.; Wilson, M. G.; Jani, Y. H.

2025-05-15 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2025.05.14.25327638 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundA learning health system (LHS) is a framework within healthcare that continuously enables improvement by incorporating knowledge generation into practice, leveraging routine data to optimise patient outcomes. Organisational culture, encompassing workplace values and traditions, is crucial for LHSs, allowing for integration of various elements within the system and ensuring cohesive functionality. Without a supportive organisational culture, a LHS may face challenges in achieving positive results, even with well-functioning individual components. Despite its recognised importance in LHS literature, the impact of organisational culture on LHS success remains unclear. This review aims to bridge this research gap. ObjectivesThe scoping review will address the question: How does organisational culture influence the generation and application of knowledge within a LHS? MethodsThis scoping review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review guidelines. Studies examining organisational culture within LHSs will be included, whilst those examining organisational culture outside a LHS framework not. Screening will be conducted using Rayyan, with title and abstract screening, followed by full-text review. A calibration exercise will be undertaken to ascertain agreement of eligibility criteria, after which the second reviewer will independently screen 10% of the studies during the title and abstract screening. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. Data extraction will use a standardised data information sheet, and the selection process and results of chosen studies will be recorded using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram. Findings will be presented through a narrative summary using thematic analysis. Ethics and DisseminationThis review does not require an ethics approval. This protocol is registered to Open Science Framework and is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/K4EC3.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
39.6%
2
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.6%
50% of probability mass above
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.8%
4
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
5
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.2%
6
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
7
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
8
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
9
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
10
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
11
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
12
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
13
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
14
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
15
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
16
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
17
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
18
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
19
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
20
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
21
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
22
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%