Review of the reverse innovation series in globalization and health - where are we and what else is needed?

Following advances in industrial strategy and organizational behaviour, as well as post-development debates in international relations, Globalization and Health launched the Reverse Innovation series in 2012, in order to forge an agenda to promote not just the innovativeness of low-income country health systems but to recognize current and advocate for future strengthened knowledge flow between the global south and global north. It was considered to be a timely antidote to a knowledge flow that has traditionally been characterised by unidirectionality of innovation and expertise. Since then, the series provides a repository of research, theory, commentary and debate through which a collective community of practice in Reverse Innovation might emerge and provide an evidence base to promote, support and mainstream this type of knowledge flow. In this Commentary, we review the series as a whole, explore what has been learnt and what needs to come next in terms of empirical research, business models, processes and theoretical contributions to inform reverse innovation.

From Kisiizi to Baltimore: cultivating knowledge brokers to support global innovation for community engagement in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Reverse Innovation has been endorsed as a vehicle for promoting bidirectional learning and information flow between low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries, with the aim of tackling common unmet needs. One such need, which traverses international boundaries, is the development of strategies to initiate and sustain community engagement in health care delivery systems. OBJECTIVE: In this commentary, we discuss the Baltimore "Community-based Organizations Neighborhood Network: Enhancing Capacity Together" Study. This randomized controlled trial evaluated whether or not a community engagement strategy, developed to address patient safety in low- and middle-income countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa, could be successfully applied to create and implement strategies that would link community-based organizations to a local health care system in Baltimore, a city in the United States. Specifically, we explore the trial's activation of community knowledge brokers as the conduit through which community engagement, and innovation production, was achieved. Cultivating community knowledge brokers holds promise as a vehicle for advancing global innovation in the context of health care delivery systems. As such, further efforts to discern the ways in which they may promote the development and dissemination of innovations in health care systems is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registration Number: NCT02222909 . Trial Register Name: Reverse Innovation and Patient Engagement to Improve Quality of Care and Patient Outcomes (CONNECT). Date of Trial's Registration: August 22, 2014.

That's not how the learning works - the paradox of Reverse Innovation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There are significant differences in the meaning and use of the term 'Reverse Innovation' between industry circles, where the term originated, and health policy circles where the term has gained traction. It is often conflated with other popularized terms such as Frugal Innovation, Co-development and Trickle-up Innovation. Compared to its use in the industrial sector, this conceptualization of Reverse Innovation describes a more complex, fragmented process, and one with no particular institution in charge. It follows that the way in which the term 'Reverse Innovation', specifically, is understood and used in the healthcare space is worthy of examination. METHODS: Between September and December 2014, we conducted eleven in-depth face-to-face or telephone interviews with key informants from innovation, health and social policy circles, experts in international comparative policy research and leaders in the Reverse Innovation space in the United States. Interviews were open-ended with guiding probes into the barriers and enablers to Reverse Innovation in the US context, specifically also informants' experience and understanding of the term Reverse Innovation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically using the process of constant comparison. RESULTS: We describe three main themes derived from the interviews. First, 'Reverse Innovation,' the term, has marketing currency to convince policy-makers that may be wary of learning from or adopting innovations from unexpected sources, in this case Low-Income Countries. Second, the term can have the opposite effect - by connoting frugality, or innovation arising from necessity as opposed to good leadership, the proposed innovation may be associated with poor quality, undermining potential translation into other contexts. Finally, the term 'Reverse Innovation' is a paradox - it breaks down preconceptions of the directionality of knowledge and learning, whilst simultaneously reinforcing it. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that this term means different things to different people and should be used strategically, and with some caution, depending on the audience.

Strengthening the evidence-policy interface for patient safety: enhancing global health through hospital partnerships.

Strengthening the evidence-policy interface is a well-recognized health system challenge in both the developed and developing world. Brokerage inherent in hospital-to-hospital partnerships can boost relationships between "evidence" and "policy" communities and move developing countries towards evidence based patient safety policy. In particular, we use the experience of a global hospital partnership programme focused on patient safety in the African Region to explore how hospital partnerships can be instrumental in advancing responsive decision-making, and the translation of patient safety evidence into health policy and planning. A co-developed approach to evidence-policy strengthening with seven components is described, with reflections from early implementation. This rapidly expanding field of enquiry is ripe for shared learning across continents, in keeping with the principles and spirit of health systems development in a globalized world.

Developed-developing country partnerships: benefits to developed countries?

Developing countries can generate effective solutions for today's global health challenges. This paper reviews relevant literature to construct the case for international cooperation, and in particular, developed-developing country partnerships. Standard database and web-based searches were conducted for publications in English between 1990 and 2010. Studies containing full or partial data relating to international cooperation between developed and developing countries were retained for further analysis. Of 227 articles retained through initial screening, 65 were included in the final analysis. The results were two-fold: some articles pointed to intangible benefits accrued by developed country partners, but the majority of information pointed to developing country innovations that can potentially inform health systems in developed countries. This information spanned all six WHO health system components. Ten key health areas where developed countries have the most to learn from the developing world were identified and include, rural health service delivery; skills substitution; decentralisation of management; creative problem-solving; education in communicable disease control; innovation in mobile phone use; low technology simulation training; local product manufacture; health financing; and social entrepreneurship. While there are no guarantees that innovations from developing country experiences can effectively transfer to developed countries, combined developed-developing country learning processes can potentially generate effective solutions for global health systems. However, the global pool of knowledge in this area is virgin and further work needs to be undertaken to advance understanding of health innovation diffusion. Even more urgently, a standardized method for reporting partnership benefits is needed--this is perhaps the single most immediate need in planning for, and realizing, the full potential of international cooperation between developed and developing countries.

How Co-Developed Are Community and Academic Partnerships?

BACKGROUND: The world-renowned resources of Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) in Baltimore, Maryland, stand in marked contrast with the surrounding impoverished neighborhoods. Community-based organizations (CBOs) are critical frontline responders to residents' needs. Baltimore CONNECT, an academic-community partnership, co-developed an intervention to strengthen connections between CBOs and between CBOs and the health care system. OBJECTIVES: To understand how members of an academic- community partnership define the act of "co-development" and share perceptions of barriers, facilitators, and ways to measure it. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 15 community partners, academic partners, and external stakeholders. RESULTS: Partners conceptualized co-development as a fluid and evolving process that is the outcome of shared decision making. This exploration revealed nuances within partnership dynamics, including motivations for participation, underlying incentives, partnership equality, balance of power, and trust and relation building. CONCLUSIONS: We present insights that can be used by academic researchers and community leaders looking to co-develop interventions to improve health in urban communities domestically and internationally.JHH in Baltimore, Maryland, is one of the most highly regarded hospitals in the United States. However, its institutional resources stand in marked contrast with those available to the impoverished neighborhoods that surround it. Many have called for JHH to play a greater role in the surrounding community, where it serves as a leading source of health care.