Responsible innovation in health and health system sustainability: Insights from health innovators' views and practices.

Although healthcare managers make increasingly difficult decisions about health innovations, the way they may interact with innovators to foster health system sustainability remains underexplored. Drawing on the Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) framework, this paper analyses interviews (n=37) with Canadian and Brazilian innovators to identify: how they operationalize inclusive design processes; what influences the responsiveness of their innovation to system-level challenges; and how they consider the level and intensity of care required by their innovation. Our qualitative findings indicate that innovators seek to: 1) engage stakeholders at an early ideation stage through context-specific methods combining both formal and informal strategies; 2) address specific system-level benefits but often struggle with the positioning of their solution within the health system; and 3) mitigate staff shortages in specialized care, increase general practitioners' capacity or patients and informal caregivers' autonomy. These findings provide empirical insights on how healthcare managers can promote and organize collaborative processes that harness innovation towards more sustainable health systems. By adopting a RIH-oriented managerial role, they can set in place more inclusive design processes, articulate key system-level challenges, and help innovators adjust the level and intensity of care required by their innovation.

Fostering Responsible Innovation in Health: An Evidence-Informed Assessment Tool for Innovation Stakeholders.

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: 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: 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: 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.

[Advances and challenges to the Brazilian policy of health technology management]. / Avanços e desafios da política nacional de gestão de tecnologias em saúde.

The Brazilian Ministry of Health has institutionalized two articulated processes in the field of health technology management: (i) the production, systematization and dissemination of health technology assessment, and (ii) the adoption of a flow for the incorporation, exclusion or alteration of new technologies by the Brazilian National Health System. Several advances have been made, such as standardization of methods; production and promotion of studies; institutional development and international cooperation in the area of health technology assessment; definition of the necessary requirements for the presentation of proposals; definition of deadlines; and expansion of the segments that compose the committee that is responsible for the analysis and recommendation. However, some difficulties remain: health technology assessment activities concentrated in the Ministry; low sustainability of the activities of production and dissemination of the assessments; low penetration of health technology assessment in health care institutions; activities of assessment/incorporation with low participation of users; non-transparent decision-making processes; and low integration of the health policy with the scientific and technological policy.

Health technology diffusion in developing countries: a case study of CT scanners in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: The development of products and services for health care systems is one of the most important phenomena to have occurred in the field of health care over the last 50 years. It generates significant commercial, medical and social results. Although much has been done to understand how health technologies are adopted and regulated in developed countries, little attention has been paid to the situation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Here we examine the institutional environment in which decisions are made regarding the adoption of expensive medical devices into the Brazilian health care system. METHODS: We used a case study strategy to address our research question. The empirical work relied on in-depth interviews (N = 16) with representatives of a wide range of actors and stakeholders that participate in the process of diffusion of CT (computerized tomography) scanners in Brazil, including manufacturers, health care organizations, medical specialty societies, health insurance companies, regulatory agencies and the Ministry of Health. RESULTS: The adoption of CT scanners is not determined by health policy makers or third-party payers of public and private sectors. Instead, decisions are primarily made by administrators of individual hospitals and clinics, strongly influenced by both physicians and sales representatives of the medical industry who act as change agents. Because this process is not properly regulated by public authorities, health care organizations are free to decide whether, when and how they will adopt a particular technology. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identifies problems in how health care systems in LMICs adopt new, expensive medical technologies, and suggests that a set of innovative approaches and policy instruments are needed in order to balance the institutional and professional desire to practise a modern and expensive medicine in a context of health inequalities and basic health needs.

Avanços e desafios da política nacional de gestão de tecnologias em saúde / Advances and challenges to the Brazilian policy of health technology management / Avances y desafíos de la política nacional de gestión de tecnologías en salud

O Ministério da Saúde instituiu dois processos articulados no campo da gestão de tecnologias em saúde: (i) produção, sistematização e difusão de estudos de avaliação de tecnologias em saúde e (ii) adoção de um fluxo para incorporação, exclusão ou alteração de novas tecnologias pelo Sistema Único de Saúde. O artigo analisa a experiência brasileira na gestão de tecnologias sanitárias no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde, seus principais avanços e desafios. Dentre os avanços obtidos estão: padronização de métodos; produção e fomento de estudos; desenvolvimento institucional e cooperação internacional na área de avaliação de tecnologias em saúde; definição dos requisitos necessários para apresentação de propostas; definição de prazos; e ampliação dos segmentos que compõem o colegiado responsável pela análise e recomendação. Entretanto, algumas dificuldades permanecem: atividades de avaliação de tecnologias em saúde concentradas no Ministério; baixa sustentabilidade das atividades de produção e disseminação das avaliações; baixa penetração da avaliação de tecnologias em saúde nos estabelecimentos de saúde; atividades de avaliação/incorporação com baixa participação dos usuários; processos decisórios pouco transparentes; e baixa integração da política de saúde com a política cientifica e tecnológica.

The Brazilian Ministry of Health has institutionalized two articulated processes in the field of health technology management: (i) the production, systematization and dissemination of health technology assessment, and (ii) the adoption of a flow for the incorporation, exclusion or alteration of new technologies by the Brazilian National Health System. Several advances have been made, such as standardization of methods; production and promotion of studies; institutional development and international cooperation in the area of health technology assessment; definition of the necessary requirements for the presentation of proposals; definition of deadlines; and expansion of the segments that compose the committee that is responsible for the analysis and recommendation. However, some difficulties remain: health technology assessment activities concentrated in the Ministry; low sustainability of the activities of production and dissemination of the assessments; low penetration of health technology assessment in health care institutions; activities of assessment/incorporation with low participation of users; non-transparent decision-making processes; and low integration of the health policy with the scientific and technological policy.

El Ministerio de la Salud de Brasil instituyó dos procesos articulados en el campo de la gestión de tecnologías en salud: (i) producción, sistematización y difusión de estudios de evaluación de tecnologías en salud y (ii) adopción de un flujo para incorporación, exclusión o alteración de nuevas tecnologías por el Sistema Único de Salud. El artículo analiza la experiencia brasileña en la gestión de tecnologías sanitarias en el ámbito del Sistema Único de Salud, sus principales avances y desafíos. Entre los avances obtenidos están: estandarización de métodos; producción y fomento de estudios; desarrollo institucional y cooperación internacional en el área de evaluación de tecnologías en salud; definición de requisitos necesarios para presentación de propuestas; definición de plazos; y ampliación de los segmentos que componen el colegiado responsable por el análisis y recomendación. Mientras, algunas dificultades permanecen: actividades de evaluación de tecnologías en salud concentradas en el Ministerio; baja sustentabilidad de las actividades de producción y diseminación de las evaluaciones, baja penetración de la evaluación de tecnologías en salud en los establecimientos de salud; actividades de evaluación/incorporación con baja participación de los usuarios; procesos decisivos poco transparentes; y baja integración de la política de salud con la política científica y tecnológica.