ArticleLearning health systems2026
Integrating Knowledge Translation: A Swiss Approach to Bridging Research and Health System Improvement.
Article in Learning health systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Swiss Learning Health System (SLHS), funded from 2017 to 2025, facilitated the movement of research to practice and policy, responding to national calls to enhance health services research and build research scientist capacity. This study evaluates the SLHS to understand how Learning Health System (LHS) science can provide a foundation for Knowledge Translation (KT) platforms at a national level, identifying successes, challenges, and lessons learned from capacity building and institutionalizing KT in support of evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in health policy and practice. Methods: We employed a mixed-methods approach from September to December 2023, using the SLHS program aims and the Knowledge-to-Action framework to inform the study's conceptualization. Data collection involved two workshops with over 40 SLHS members, a survey of 39 members, and in-depth interviews with 10 key informants, analyzed using descriptive and thematic methods. Results: Capacity-building efforts prompting a cultural shift by training research scientists to adopt a science-policy-practice mindset were the most common successes captured. The LHS and KT approaches aided in dismantling silos and encouraged community building through participatory methods. An important lesson learned is the value of co-creation involving key partners, especially patients, in the research process to strengthen relevance, issue prioritization, and evidence use. However, challenges persisted in adequately tailoring and transferring knowledge, highlighting the need for more consistent engagement with community partners to enhance the impact and relevance of KT efforts. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the SLHS is a valued initiative for capacity building, while highlighting the need to strengthen co-creation and refine strategies for adapting research evidence for EIDM in health policy and practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.