Fostering Responsible Innovation in Health: An EvidenceInformed Assessment Tool for Innovation Stakeholders

سال انتشار: 1400
نوع سند: مقاله ژورنالی
زبان: انگلیسی
مشاهده: 166

فایل این مقاله در 11 صفحه با فرمت PDF قابل دریافت می باشد

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این مقاله:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

JR_HPM-10-4_002

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 18 مرداد 1403

چکیده مقاله:

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 ۴ inclusion and exclusion criteria, ۹ assessment attributes and a scoring system.   Methods We conducted an inter-rater reliability assessment to establish the extent to which ۲ raters agree when applying the RIH Tool to a diversified sample of health innovations (n = ۲۵). Following the Tool’s ۳-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 Our findings show complete agreement for the screening criteria, “almost perfect” agreement for ۷ assessment attributes, “substantial” agreement for ۲ attributes and “almost perfect” agreement for the RIH overall score. A large portion of the sample obtained high scores for ۶ attributes (health relevance, health inequalities, responsiveness, level and intensity of care and frugality) and low scores for ۳ attributes (ethical, legal, and social issues [ELSIs], inclusiveness and eco-responsibility). At the rating step, ۸۸% of the innovations had a sufficient number of attributes documented (≥ ۷/۹), but the assessment was based on sources of moderate to high quality (mean score ≥ ۲ points) for ۳۶% of the sample. While “Almost all RIH features” were present for ۲۴% of the innovations (RIH mean score between ۴.۱-۵.۰ points), “Many RIH features” were present for ۵۲% of the sample (۳.۱-۴.۰ points) and “Few RIH features” were present for ۲۴% of the innovations (۲.۱-۳.۰ points).   Conclusion 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.

نویسندگان

Hudson P. Silva

Public Health Research Institute, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Andrée-Anne Lefebvre

School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Robson R. Oliveira

Public Health Research Institute, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Pascale Lehoux

Public Health Research Institute, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

مراجع و منابع این مقاله:

لیست زیر مراجع و منابع استفاده شده در این مقاله را نمایش می دهد. این مراجع به صورت کاملا ماشینی و بر اساس هوش مصنوعی استخراج شده اند و لذا ممکن است دارای اشکالاتی باشند که به مرور زمان دقت استخراج این محتوا افزایش می یابد. مراجعی که مقالات مربوط به آنها در سیویلیکا نمایه شده و پیدا شده اند، به خود مقاله لینک شده اند :
  • Fineberg HV. Shattuck Lecture. A successful and sustainable health systemhow ...
  • Garber S, Gates SM, Keeler EB, et al. Redirecting innovation ...
  • Lehoux P, Roncarolo F, Silva HP, Boivin A, Denis JL, ...
  • Macdonnell M, Darzi A. A key to slower health spending ...
  • Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Bridging health ...
  • Marsh KD, Sculpher M, Caro JJ, Tervonen T. The use ...
  • Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. ...
  • Marsh K, Goetghebeur M, Thokala P, Baltussen R. Multi-Criteria Decision ...
  • Adunlin G, Diaby V, Xiao H. Application of multicriteria decision ...
  • Diaby V, Campbell K, Goeree R. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) ...
  • Goetghebeur MM, Cellier MS. Can reflective multicriteria be the new ...
  • Wahlster P, Goetghebeur M, Kriza C, Niederlander C, Kolominsky-Rabas P. ...
  • von Schomberg R. A Vision of responsible research and innovation. ...
  • Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for ...
  • Lehoux P, Pacifico Silva H, Pozelli Sabio R, Roncarolo F. ...
  • Pacifico Silva H, Lehoux P, Miller FA, Denis JL. Introducing ...
  • Stahl BC. Who is responsible for responsible innovation? lessons from ...
  • Pacifico Silva H, Lehoux P, Hagemeister N. Developing a tool ...
  • Bolarinwa OA. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing ...
  • Gwet KL. Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability. ۴th ed. Advanced Analytics, ...
  • Zhao X, Liu JS, Deng K. Assumption behind intercoder reliability ...
  • Quarfoot D, Levine RA. How robust are multirater interrater reliability ...
  • Wongpakaran N, Wongpakaran T, Wedding D, Gwet KL. A comparison ...
  • Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. ...
  • Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for ...
  • Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied Statistics for the ...
  • Polisena J, De Angelis G, Kaunelis D, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I. Environmental ...
  • Campion N, Thiel CL, Woods NC, Swanzy L, Landis AE, ...
  • Garau M, Devlin NJ. Using MCDA as a decision aid ...
  • Culyer AJ. Deliberative Processes in Decisions about Health Care Technologies: ...
  • Weyrauch T, Herstatt C. What is frugal innovation? three defining ...
  • Davis M, Laas K. "Broader impacts" or "responsible research and ...
  • Robinson JC. Biomedical innovation in the era of health care ...
  • Miller FA, Lehoux P, Peacock S, et al. How procurement ...
  • Rivard L, Lehoux P. When desirability and feasibility go hand ...
  • نمایش کامل مراجع