Fostering Responsible Innovation in Health: An Evidence-Informed Assessment Tool for Innovation Stakeholders.
Assessment Tool
Equity
Health Technology
Multi-criteria Decision Analysis
Responsible Innovation
Sustainability
Journal
International journal of health policy and management
ISSN: 2322-5939
Titre abrégé: Int J Health Policy Manag
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101619905
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Mar 2021
14 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
02
08
2019
accepted:
26
02
2020
pubmed:
3
7
2020
medline:
16
10
2021
entrez:
3
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Responsible 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. We 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. Our 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). By 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Responsible 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.
METHODS
METHODS
We 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.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our 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).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
By 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32610749
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.34
pmc: PMC8167270
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
181-191Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Références
Niger Postgrad Med J. 2015 Oct-Dec;22(4):195-201
pubmed: 26776330
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Sep 10;16(1):90
pubmed: 30200985
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Nov 30;11:329
pubmed: 22129247
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Apr 29;13:61
pubmed: 23627889
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Apr;32(4):345-65
pubmed: 24504851
Value Health. 2018 Apr;21(4):394-397
pubmed: 29680094
Rand Health Q. 2014 Mar 1;4(1):3
pubmed: 28083317
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Jul 09;15:262
pubmed: 26152122
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Nov 28;8(2):63-75
pubmed: 30980619
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):1894-905
pubmed: 25327341
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Feb;34(2):203-9
pubmed: 25646099
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018 Jan;34(3):317-326
pubmed: 29897036
J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):543-9
pubmed: 2348207
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 15;366(11):1020-7
pubmed: 22417255
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Apr;32(4):653-60
pubmed: 23569044
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Nov 9;16(Suppl 1):54
pubmed: 30455613
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019 May 19;8(7):447-449
pubmed: 31441281
Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 Dec;20(4):963-83
pubmed: 24155159
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019 Jan;35(1):50-55
pubmed: 30732667