Dataset Information

What Health System Challenges Should Responsible Innovation in Health Address? Insights From an International Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While responsible innovation in health (RIH) suggests that health innovations could be purposefully designed to better support health systems, little is known about the system-level challenges that it should address. The goal of this paper is thus to document what is known about health systems' demand for innovations.

Methods

We searched 8 databases to perform a scoping review of the scientific literature on health system challenges published between January 2000 and April 2016. The challenges reported in the articles were classified using the dynamic health system framework. The countries where the studies had been conducted were grouped using the human development index (HDI). Frequency distributions and qualitative content analysis were performed.

Results

Up to 1391 challenges were extracted from 254 articles examining health systems in 99 countries. Across countries, the most frequently reported challenges pertained to: service delivery (25%), human resources (23%), and leadership and governance (21%). Our analyses indicate that innovations tend to increase challenges associated to human resources by affecting the nature and scope of their tasks, skills and responsibilities, to exacerbate service delivery issues when they are meant to be used by highly skilled providers and call for accountable governance of their dissemination, use and reimbursement. In countries with a low and medium HDI, problems arising with infrastructure, logistics and equipment were described in connection with challenges affecting procurement, supply and distribution systems. In countries with a medium and high HDI, challenges included a growing demand for drugs and new technology and the management of rising costs. Across all HDI groups, the need for flexible information technologies (IT) solutions to reach rural areas was underscored.

Conclusion

Highlighting challenges that are common across countries, this study suggests that RIH should aim to reduce the cost of innovation production processes and attend not only to the requirements of the immediate clinical context of use, but also to the vulnerabilities of the broader system wherein innovations are deployed. Policy-makers should translate system-level demand signals into innovation development opportunities since it is imperative to foster innovations that contribute to the success and sustainability of health systems.

SUBMITTER: Lehoux P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6462209 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What Health System Challenges Should Responsible Innovation in Health Address? Insights From an International Scoping Review.

Lehoux Pascale P Roncarolo Federico F Silva Hudson Pacifico HP Boivin Antoine A Denis Jean-Louis JL Hébert Réjean R

International journal of health policy and management 20190201 2

<h4>Background</h4>While responsible innovation in health (RIH) suggests that health innovations could be purposefully designed to better support health systems, little is known about the system-level challenges that it should address. The goal of this paper is thus to document what is known about health systems' demand for innovations.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched 8 databases to perform a scoping review of the scientific literature on health system challenges published between January 2000 and Ap ...[more]

PMID: 30980619

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmployee-driven innovation (EDI) occurs when frontline actors in health organizations use their firsthand experience to spur new ideas to transform care. Despite its increasing prevalence in health organizations, the organizational conditions under which EDI is operationalized have received little scholarly attention.MethodsThis scoping review identifies gaps and assembles existing knowledge on four questions: What is EDI in health organizations and which frontline actors are involved? What are the characteristics of the EDI process? What contextual factors enable or impede EDI? And what benefits does EDI bring to health organizations? We searched seven databases with keywords related to EDI in health organizations. After screening 1580 studies by title and abstract, we undertook full-text review of 453 articles, retaining 60 for analysis. We performed a descriptive and an inductive thematic analysis guided by the four questions.ResultsFindings reveal an heterogeneous literature. Most articles are descriptive (n = 41). Few studies are conceptual and empirical (n = 15) and four are conference papers. EDI was often described as a participatory, learning innovation process involving frontline clinical and non-clinical staff and managers. Majority EDI were top-down, often driven by the organization's focus on participatory improvement and innovation and research-based initiatives. Five categories of methods is used in top-down EDI, two thirds of which includes a learning, a team and/or a digital component. Hybrid EDI often involves a team-based component. Bottom-up EDI emerged spontaneously from the work of frontline actors. Enablers, barriers, and benefits of EDI are seen at macro, organizational, team and individual levels; some benefits spread to other health organizations and health systems.ConclusionThis scoping review provides a comprehensive understanding of the organizational conditions under which EDI is operationalized. It offers insights for researchers, health organizations, and policy-makers about how and why frontline actors' involvement is crucial for the transformation of care.

Project description:ObjectivesHealth inequalities are systematic differences in health between people, which are avoidable and unfair. Globally, more political strategies are required to address health inequalities, which have increased since the global SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic, with a disproportionate impact on children. This scoping review aimed to identify and collate information on how hospitals around the world that deliver care to children have addressed health inequalities.DesignScoping review focused solely on grey literature.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesFollowing Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, a four-step approach to identifying literature was adopted.Data sourcesOverton, OpenGrey, OpenMD, Trip Database, DuckDuckGo, Google, targeted websites and children's hospital websites were searched on March 2023 for items published since 2010.Data extraction and synthesisRetrieved items were screened against clear inclusion and exclusion criteria before data were extracted by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool. Studies were tabulated by a hospital. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to the varied nature of studies and approaches.ResultsOur study identified 26 approaches to reduction of health inequalities, from 17 children's hospitals. Approaches were categorised based on their size and scope. Seven approaches were defined as macro, including hospital-wide inequality strategies. Ten approaches were classed as meso, including the establishment of new departments and research centres. Micro approaches (n=9) included one-off projects or interventions offered to specific groups/services. Almost half of the reported approaches did not discuss the evaluation of impact.ConclusionsChildren's hospitals provide a suitable location to conduct public health interventions. This scoping review provides examples of approaches on three scales delivered at hospitals across high-income countries. Hospitals with the most comprehensive and extensive range of approaches employ dedicated staff within the hospital and community. This review indicates the value of recruitment of both public health-trained staff and culturally similar staff to deliver community-based interventions.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing innovation readiness of healthcare organizations is necessary to meet upcoming challenges, including population aging, staff shortages and reduced funding. Health care organizations differ in the extent to which they are innovation ready. This review aims to clarify the concept of innovation readiness and identify which factors contribute to innovation readiness in health care organizations.MethodsA scoping review was conducted based on the framework from Arksey and O'Malley. PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for studies that (a) aimed to contribute to scientific knowledge about innovation readiness of health care organizations, (b) were peer-reviewed, (c) reported empirical data and (d) were written in English, Dutch or German. Factors researched in the included studies were bundled into 4 overarching main factors and 10 sub-factors.ResultsOf the 6,208 studies identified, 44 were included. The majority (n = 36) of the studies had been conducted since 2011 and almost half of the studies (n = 19) were performed in hospitals. Of the 44 studies, 21 researched factors contributing to innovation readiness in the implementation stage of the innovation process. The authors used a variety of words and descriptions addressing innovation readiness, with hardly any theoretical frameworks for innovation readiness presented. Four main factors and 10 sub-factors contributing to the innovation readiness of health care organizations were summarized: strategic course for innovation, climate for innovation, leadership for innovation and commitment to innovation. Climate for innovation (n = 16) was studied the most and individual commitment to innovation (n = 6) was the least studied.ConclusionOur study identified four main factors contributing to the innovation readiness of health care organizations. Research into innovation readiness of health care organizations is a rather new field. Future research could be directed towards defining the concept of innovation readiness and the development of a framework for innovation readiness. More understanding of the interplay of factors contributing to innovation readiness in all stages of the innovation process and in diverse health care settings can support health care managers to structurally embed innovation. This review contributes to the first stage of theory building on factors contributing to innovation readiness of health care organizations.

Project description:While there is an extensive literature on Health System (HS) strengthening and on the performance of specific HSs, there are few exhaustive syntheses of the challenges HSs are facing worldwide. This paper reports the findings of a scoping review aiming to classify the challenges of HSs investigated in the scientific literature. Specifically, it determines the kind of research conducted on HS challenges, where it was performed, in which health sectors and on which populations. It also identifies the types of challenge described the most and how they varied across countries.We searched 8 databases to identify scientific papers published in English, French and Italian between January 2000 and April 2016 that addressed HS needs and challenges. The challenges reported in the articles were classified using van Olmen et al.'s dynamic HS framework. Countries were classified using the Human Development Index (HDI). Our analyses relied on descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.292 articles were included in our scoping review. 33.6% of these articles were empirical studies and 60.1% were specific to countries falling within the very high HDI category, in particular the United States. The most frequently researched sectors were mental health (41%), infectious diseases (12%) and primary care (11%). The most frequently studied target populations included elderly people (23%), people living in remote or poor areas (21%), visible or ethnic minorities (15%), and children and adolescents (15%). The most frequently reported challenges related to human resources (22%), leadership and governance (21%) and health service delivery (24%). While health service delivery challenges were more often examined in countries within the very high HDI category, human resources challenges attracted more attention within the low HDI category.This scoping review provides a quantitative description of the available evidence on HS challenges and a qualitative exploration of the dynamic relationships that HS components entertain. While health services research is increasingly concerned about the way HSs can adopt innovations, little is known about the system-level challenges that innovations should address in the first place. Within this perspective, four key lessons are drawn as well as three knowledge gaps.

Project description:BackgroundResponsible innovation in health (RIH) emphasizes the importance of developing technologies that are responsive to system-level challenges and support equitable and sustainable healthcare. To help decision-makers identify whether an innovation fulfills RIH requirements, we developed and validated an evidence-informed assessment tool comprised of 4 inclusion and exclusion criteria, 9 assessment attributes and a scoring system.MethodsWe conducted an inter-rater reliability assessment to establish the extent to which 2 raters agree when applying the RIH Tool to a diversified sample of health innovations (n=25). Following the Tool's 3-step process, sources of information were collected and cross-checked to ensure their clarity and relevance. Ratings were reported independently in a spreadsheet to generate the study's database. To measure inter-rater reliability, we used: a non-adjusted index (percent agreement), a chance-adjusted index (Gwet's AC) and the Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results of the Tool's application to the whole sample of innovations are summarized through descriptive statistics.ResultsOur findings show complete agreement for the screening criteria, "almost perfect" agreement for 7 assessment attributes, "substantial" agreement for 2 attributes and "almost perfect" agreement for the RIH overall score. A large portion of the sample obtained high scores for 6 attributes (health relevance, health inequalities, responsiveness, level and intensity of care and frugality) and low scores for 3 attributes (ethical, legal, and social issues [ELSIs], inclusiveness and eco-responsibility). At the rating step, 88% of the innovations had a sufficient number of attributes documented (≥ 7/9), but the assessment was based on sources of moderate to high quality (mean score ≥ 2 points) for 36% of the sample. While "Almost all RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (RIH mean score between 4.1-5.0 points), "Many RIH features" were present for 52% of the sample (3.1-4.0 points) and "Few RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (2.1-3.0 points).ConclusionBy confirming key aspects of the RIH Tool's reliability and applicability, our study brings its development to completion. It can be jointly put into action by innovation stakeholders who want to foster innovations with greater social, economic and environmental value.

Dataset Information

What Health System Challenges Should Responsible Innovation in Health Address? Insights From an International Scoping Review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

What Health System Challenges Should Responsible Innovation in Health Address? Insights From an International Scoping Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets