Understanding the integration of artificial intelligence in healthcare organisations and systems through the NASSS framework: a qualitative study in a leading Canadian academic centre.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are expected to "revolutionise" healthcare. However, despite their promises, their integration within healthcare organisations and systems remains limited. The objective of this study is to explore and understand the systemic challenges and implications of their integration in a leading Canadian academic hospital. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 stakeholders concerned by the integration of a large set of AI technologies within the organisation (e.g., managers, clinicians, researchers, patients, technology providers). Data were collected and analysed using the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) framework. RESULTS: Among enabling factors and conditions, our findings highlight: a supportive organisational culture and leadership leading to a coherent organisational innovation narrative; mutual trust and transparent communication between senior management and frontline teams; the presence of champions, translators, and boundary spanners for AI able to build bridges and trust; and the capacity to attract technical and clinical talents and expertise. Constraints and barriers include: contrasting definitions of the value of AI technologies and ways to measure such value; lack of real-life and context-based evidence; varying patients' digital and health literacy capacities; misalignments between organisational dynamics, clinical and administrative processes, infrastructures, and AI technologies; lack of funding mechanisms covering the implementation, adaptation, and expertise required; challenges arising from practice change, new expertise development, and professional identities; lack of official professional, reimbursement, and insurance guidelines; lack of pre- and post-market approval legal and governance frameworks; diversity of the business and financing models for AI technologies; and misalignments between investors' priorities and the needs and expectations of healthcare organisations and systems. CONCLUSION: Thanks to the multidimensional NASSS framework, this study provides original insights and a detailed learning base for analysing AI technologies in healthcare from a thorough socio-technical perspective. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the complexity characterising healthcare organisations and systems in current efforts to introduce AI technologies within clinical routines. This study adds to the existing literature and can inform decision-making towards a judicious, responsible, and sustainable integration of these technologies in healthcare organisations and systems.

A Comprehensive, Valid, and Reliable Tool to Assess the Degree of Responsibility of Digital Health Solutions That Operate With or Without Artificial Intelligence: 3-Phase Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' scope of responsibilities is being steadily transformed by digital health solutions that operate with or without artificial intelligence (DAI solutions). Most tools developed to foster ethical practices lack rigor and do not concurrently capture the health, social, economic, and environmental issues that such solutions raise. OBJECTIVE: To support clinical leadership in this field, we aimed to develop a comprehensive, valid, and reliable tool that measures the responsibility of DAI solutions by adapting the multidimensional and already validated Responsible Innovation in Health Tool. METHODS: We conducted a 3-phase mixed methods study. Relying on a scoping review of available tools, phase 1 (concept mapping) led to a preliminary version of the Responsible DAI solutions Assessment Tool. In phase 2, an international 2-round e-Delphi expert panel rated on a 5-level scale the importance, clarity, and appropriateness of the tool's components. In phase 3, a total of 2 raters independently applied the revised tool to a sample of DAI solutions (n=25), interrater reliability was measured, and final minor changes were made to the tool. RESULTS: The mapping process identified a comprehensive set of responsibility premises, screening criteria, and assessment attributes specific to DAI solutions. e-Delphi experts critically assessed these new components and provided comments to increase content validity (n=293), and after round 2, consensus was reached on 85% (22/26) of the items surveyed. Interrater agreement was substantial for a subcriterion and almost perfect for all other criteria and assessment attributes. CONCLUSIONS: The Responsible DAI solutions Assessment Tool offers a comprehensive, valid, and reliable means of assessing the degree of responsibility of DAI solutions in health. As regulation remains limited, this forward-looking tool has the potential to change practice toward more equitable as well as economically and environmentally sustainable digital health care.

An urgent call for the environmental sustainability of health systems: A 'sextuple aim' to care for patients, costs, providers, population equity and the planet.

Health systems have a duty to protect the health and well-being of individuals and populations. Yet, healthcare contributes about 4.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Health systems need to question and improve established practices, assume strong environmental leadership, and aim for ambitious, sometimes radical, actions in favour of the climate. In this paper, we interrogate the suitability and feasibility of integrating the aim of 'environmental sustainability' to form the 'Sextuple Aim.' Environmental sustainability may be in tension with, but also a potential lever to meet the other cardinal aims: (1) quality and experience of patient care; (2) population health; (3) quality of work and satisfaction of healthcare providers; (4) equity and inclusion; and (5) cost reduction. We propose policy and practical avenues to help move towards the Sextuple Aim.

How can entrepreneurs experience inform responsible health innovation policies? A longitudinal case study in Canada and Brazil.

AIM: To foster equity and make health systems economically and environmentally more sustainable, Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) calls for policy changes advocated by mission-oriented innovation policies. These policies focus, however, on instruments to foster the supply of innovations and neglect health policies that affect their uptake. Our study's aim is to inform policies that can support RIH by gaining insights into RIH-oriented entrepreneurs' experience with the policies that influence both the supply of, and the demand for their innovations. METHODS: We recruited 16 for-profit and not-for-profit organisations engaged in the production of RIH in Brazil and Canada in a longitudinal multiple case study. Our dataset includes three rounds of interviews (n = 48), self-reported data, and fieldnotes. We performed qualitative thematic analyses to identify across-cases patterns. FINDINGS: RIH-oriented entrepreneurs interact with supply side policies that support technology-led solutions because of their economic potential but that are misaligned with societal challenge-led solutions. They navigate demand side policies where market approval and physician incentives largely condition the uptake of technology-led solutions and where emerging policies bring some support to societal challenge-led solutions. Academic intermediaries that bridge supply and demand side policies may facilitate RIH, but our findings point to an overall lack of policy directionality that limits RIH. CONCLUSION: As mission-oriented innovation policies aim to steer innovation towards the tackling of societal challenges, they call for a major shift in the public sector's role. A comprehensive mission-oriented policy approach to RIH requires policy instruments that can align, orchestrate, and reconcile health priorities with a renewed understanding of innovation-led economic development.

Artificial intelligence in health care: laying the Foundation for Responsible, sustainable, and inclusive innovation in low- and middle-income countries.

The World Health Organization and other institutions are considering Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a technology that can potentially address some health system gaps, especially the reduction of global health inequalities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, because most AI-based health applications are developed and implemented in high-income countries, their use in LMICs contexts is recent and there is a lack of robust local evaluations to guide decision-making in low-resource settings. After discussing the potential benefits as well as the risks and challenges raised by AI-based health care, we propose five building blocks to guide the development and implementation of more responsible, sustainable, and inclusive AI health care technologies in LMICs.

Artificial Intelligence and Health Technology Assessment: Anticipating a New Level of Complexity.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is seen as a strategic lever to improve access, quality, and efficiency of care and services and to build learning and value-based health systems. Many studies have examined the technical performance of AI within an experimental context. These studies provide limited insights into the issues that its use in a real-world context of care and services raises. To help decision makers address these issues in a systemic and holistic manner, this viewpoint paper relies on the health technology assessment core model to contrast the expectations of the health sector toward the use of AI with the risks that should be mitigated for its responsible deployment. The analysis adopts the perspective of payers (ie, health system organizations and agencies) because of their central role in regulating, financing, and reimbursing novel technologies. This paper suggests that AI-based systems should be seen as a health system transformation lever, rather than a discrete set of technological devices. Their use could bring significant changes and impacts at several levels: technological, clinical, human and cognitive (patient and clinician), professional and organizational, economic, legal, and ethical. The assessment of AI's value proposition should thus go beyond technical performance and cost logic by performing a holistic analysis of its value in a real-world context of care and services. To guide AI development, generate knowledge, and draw lessons that can be translated into action, the right political, regulatory, organizational, clinical, and technological conditions for innovation should be created as a first step.

Rethinking the electronic health record through the quadruple aim: time to align its value with the health system.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are considered as a powerful lever for enabling value-based health systems. However, many challenges to their use persist and some of their unintended negative impacts are increasingly well documented, including the deterioration of work conditions and quality, and increased dissatisfaction of health care providers. The "quadruple aim" consists of improving population health as well as patient and provider experience while reducing costs. Based on this approach, improving the quality of work and well-being of health care providers could help rethinking the implementation of EHRs and also other information technology-based tools and systems, while creating more value for patients, organizations and health systems.

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders.

OBJECTIVES: Procurement's important role in healthcare decision making has encouraged criticism and calls for greater collaboration with health technology assessment (HTA), and necessitates detailed analysis of how procurement approaches the decision task. METHODS: We reviewed tender documents that solicit medical technologies for patient care in Canada, focusing on request for proposal (RFP) tenders that assess quality and cost, supplemented by a census of all tender types. We extracted data to assess (i) use of group purchasing organizations (GPOs) as buyers, (ii) evaluation criteria and rubrics, and (iii) contract terms, as indicators of supplier type and market conditions. RESULTS: GPOs were dominant buyers for RFPs (54/97) and all tender types (120/226), and RFPs were the most common tender (92/226), with few price-only tenders (11/226). Evaluation criteria for quality were technical, including clinical or material specifications, as well as vendor experience and qualifications; "total cost" was frequently referenced (83/97), but inconsistently used. The most common (47/97) evaluative rubric was summed scores, or summed scores after excluding those below a mandatory minimum (22/97), with majority weight (64.1 percent, 62.9 percent) assigned to quality criteria. Where specified, expected contract lengths with successful suppliers were high (mean, 3.93 years; average renewal, 2.14 years), and most buyers (37/42) expected to award to a single supplier. CONCLUSIONS: Procurement's evaluative approach is distinctive. While aiming to go beyond price in the acquisition of most medical technologies, it adopts a narrow approach to assessing quality and costs, but also attends to factors little considered by HTA, suggesting opportunities for mutual lesson learning.

Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public engagement is growing, but evaluative efforts remain limited. Reviews looking at evaluation tools for patient engagement in individual decision making do exist, but no similar articles in research and health systems have been published. OBJECTIVE: Systematically review and appraise evaluation tools for patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making. METHODS: We searched literature published between January 1980 and February 2016. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL and PsycINFO) were consulted, as well as grey literature obtained through Google, subject-matter experts, social media and engagement organization websites. Two independent reviewers appraised the evaluation tools based on 4 assessment criteria: scientific rigour, patient and public perspective, comprehensiveness and usability. RESULTS: In total, 10 663 unique references were identified, 27 were included. Most of these tools were developed in the last decade and were designed to support improvement of engagement activities. Only 11% of tools were explicitly based on a literature review, and just 7% were tested for reliability. Patients and members of the public were involved in designing 56% of the tools, mainly in the piloting stage, and 18.5% of tools were designed to report evaluation results to patients and the public. CONCLUSION: A growing number of evaluation tools are available to support patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making. However, the scientific rigour with which such evaluation tools are developed could be improved, as well as the level of patient and public engagement in their design and reporting.

Introducing responsible innovation in health: a policy-oriented framework.

The scholarship on responsible research and innovation (RRI) aims to align the processes and outcomes of innovation with societal values by involving a broad range of stakeholders from a very early stage. Though this scholarship offers a new lens to consider the challenges new health technologies raise for health systems around the world, there is a need to define the dimensions that specifically characterise responsible innovation in health (RIH). The present article aims to introduce an integrative RIH framework drawing on the RRI literature, the international literature on health systems as well as specific bodies of knowledge that shed light on key dimensions of health innovations. Combining inductive and deductive theory-building strategies and concomitant with the development of a formal tool to assess the responsibility of innovations, we developed a framework that is comprised of nine dimensions organised within five value domains, namely population health, health system, economic, organisational and environmental. RIH provides health and innovation policy-makers with a common framework that supports the development of innovations that can tackle significant system-level challenges, including sustainability and equity.

What do we know about the needs and challenges of health systems? A scoping review of the international literature.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Factors constraining patient engagement in implantable medical device discussions and decisions: interviews with physicians.

OBJECTIVE: Patient engagement (PE) is warranted when treatment risks and outcomes are uncertain, as is the case for higher risk medical devices. Previous research found that patients were not engaged in discussions or decisions about implantable medical devices. This study explored physician views about engaging patients in such discussions. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews using a basic descriptive approach. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Practicing cardiovascular and orthopaedic physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Level, processes and determinants of PE in medical device discussions and decisions. RESULTS: Views were largely similar among 10 cardiovascular and 12 orthopaedic physicians interviewed. Most said that it was feasible to inform and sometimes involve patients in discussions, but not to partner with them in medical device decision-making. PE was constrained by patient (comfort with PE, technical understanding, physiologic/demographic characteristics, prognosis), physician (device preferences, time), health system (purchasing contracts) and device factors (number of devices on market, comparative advantage). A framework was generated to help physicians engage patients in discussions about medical devices, even when decisions may not be preference sensitive due to multiple constraints on choice. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that patients are not engaged in discussions or decisions about implantable medical devices. This may be due to multiple constraints. Further research should establish the legitimacy, prevalence and impact of constraining factors, and examine whether and how different levels and forms of PE are needed and feasible.

MEDICAL DEVICE RECALLS IN CANADA FROM 2005 TO 2015.

OBJECTIVES: Medical devices are ubiquitous in modern medical care. However, little is known about the epidemiology of medical devices in the healthcare marketplace, including the rate at which medical devices are subject to recalls or other advisories. We sought to study the epidemiology of medical devices in Canada, focusing on device recalls. In Canada, a recall may signify a variety of events, ranging from relatively minor field safety notifications, to removal of a product from the marketplace. METHODS: We used data from Health Canada to study medical device recalls in Canada from 2005 to 2015. We analyzed the risks of medical device recalls according to the risk class of the device (I lowest; IV highest) and the hazard priority of the recall (Type I highest potential harm; Type III lowest potential harm). RESULTS: During a 10-year period, there were 7,226 medical device recalls. Most recalls were for intermediate risk class (Class II, 40.1 percent; Class III, 38.7 percent) medical devices. Among recalled devices, 5.0 percent were judged to have a reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death (Type I recall Hazard Priority classification). While the number of medical devices marketed in Canada is not known, over a similar 10-year period, 24,849 new Class II, II, and IV medical device licenses were issued by Health Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Several hundred medical device recalls occur in Canada each year. Further research is needed to characterize the nature of medical device recalls, and to explore how consumers use information about recalls.

Multiple constraints compromise decision-making about implantable medical devices for individual patients: qualitative interviews with physicians.

BACKGROUND: Little research has examined how physicians choose medical devices for treating individual patients to reveal if interventions are needed to support decision-making and reduce device-associated morbidity and mortality. This study explored factors that influence choice of implantable device from among available options. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative approach was used. Physicians who implant orthopedic and cardiovascular devices were identified in publicly available directories and web sites. They were asked how they decided what device to use in a given patient, sources of information they consulted, and how patients were engaged in decision-making. Sampling was concurrent with data collection and analysis to achieve thematic saturation. Data were analyzed using constant comparative technique by all members of the research team. RESULTS: Twenty-two physicians from five Canadian provinces (10 cardiovascular, 12 orthopedic; 8, 10 and 4 early, mid and late career, respectively) were interviewed. Responses did not differ by specialty, geographic region or career stage. Five major categories of themes emerged that all influence decision-making about a range of devices, and often compromise choice of the most suitable device for a given patient, potentially leading to sub-optimal clinical outcomes: lack of evidence on device performance, patient factors, physician factors, organizational and health system factors, and device and device market factors. In the absence of evidence from research or device registries, tacit knowledge from trusted colleagues and less-trusted industry representatives informed device choice. Patients were rarely engaged in decision-making. Physician preference for particular devices was a barrier to acquiring competency in devices potentially more suitable for patients. Access to suitable devices was further limited to the number of comparable devices on the market, local inventory and purchasing contract specifications. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that decision-making about devices is complex, cognitively challenging and constrained by several factors limiting access to and use of devices that could optimize patient outcomes. Further research is needed to assess the impact of these constraints on clinical outcomes, and develop interventions that optimize decision-making about device choice for treating given patients.

International changes in end-of-life practices over time: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life policies are hotly debated in many countries, with international evidence frequently used to support or oppose legal reforms. Existing reviews are limited by their focus on specific practices or selected jurisdictions. The objective is to review international time trends in end-of-life practices. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of empirical studies on medical end-of-life practices, including treatment withdrawal, the use of drugs for symptom management, and the intentional use of lethal drugs. A search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, PAIS International, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and CINAHL. We included studies that described physicians' actual practices and estimated annual frequency at the jurisdictional level. End-of-life practice frequencies were analyzed for variations over time, using logit regression. RESULTS: Among 8183 references, 39 jurisdiction-wide surveys conducted between 1990 and 2010 were identified. Of those, 22 surveys used sufficiently similar research methods to allow further statistical analysis. Significant differences were found across surveys in the frequency of treatment withdrawal, use of opiates or sedatives and the intentional use of lethal drugs (X 2 > 1000, p < 0.001 for all). Regression analyses showed increased use of opiates and sedatives over time (p < 0.001), which could reflect more intense symptom management at the end of life, or increase in these drugs to intentionally cause patients' death. CONCLUSION: The use of opiates and sedatives appears to have significantly increased over time between 1990 and 2010. Better distinction between practices with different legal status is required to properly interpret the policy significance of these changes. Research on the effects of public policies should take a comprehensive look at trends in end-of-life practice patterns and their associations with policy changes.

Citizen expectations of 'academic entrepreneurship' in health research: public science, practical benefit.

BACKGROUND: Responsiveness to citizens as users of technological innovation helps motivate translational research and commercial engagement among academics. Yet, retaining citizen trust and support for research encourages caution in pursuit of commercial science. OBJECTIVES: We explore citizen expectations of the specifically academic nature of commercial science [i.e. academic entrepreneurship (AE)] and the influence of conflict of interest concerns, hopes about practical benefits and general beliefs. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional national opinion survey of 1002 Canadians online in 2010. RESULTS: Approval of AE was moderate (mean 3.2/5, SD 0.84), but varied by entrepreneurial activity. Concern about conflict of interests (COI) was moderate (mean 2.9/5, SD 0.86) and varied by type of concern. An ordinary least-squares regression showed that expectations of practical benefits informed support for AE, specifically that academic-industry collaboration can better address real-world problems; conflict of interest concerns were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that citizens support AE for its potential to produce practical benefits, but enthusiasm varies and is reduced for activities that may prioritize private over public interests. Further, support exists despite concern about COI, perhaps due to trust in the academic research context. For user engagement in research priority setting, these findings suggest the need to attend to the commercial nature of translational science. For research policy, they suggest the need for governance arrangements for responsible innovation, which can sustain public trust in academic research, and realize the practical benefits that inform public support for AE.

What are the key ingredients for effective public involvement in health care improvement and policy decisions? A randomized trial process evaluation.

CONTEXT: In the past 50 years, individual patient involvement at the clinical consultation level has received considerable attention. More recently, patients and the public have increasingly been involved in collective decisions concerning the improvement of health care and policymaking. However, rigorous evaluation guiding the development and implementation of effective public involvement interventions is lacking. This article describes those key ingredients likely to affect public members' ability to deliberate productively with professionals and influence collective health care choices. METHOD: We conducted a trial process evaluation of public involvement in setting priorities for health care improvement. In all, 172 participants (including 83 patients and public members and 89 professionals) from 6 Health and Social Services Centers in Canada participated in the trial. We video-recorded 14 one-day meetings, and 2 nonparticipant observers took structured notes. Using qualitative analysis, we show how public members influenced health care improvement priorities. FINDINGS: Legitimacy, credibility, and power explain the variations in the public members' influence. Their credibility was supported by their personal experience as patients and caregivers, the provision of a structured preparation meeting, and access to population-based data from their community. Legitimacy was fostered by the recruitment of a balanced group of participants and by the public members' opportunities to draw from one another's experience. The combination of small-group deliberations, wider public consultation, and a moderation style focused on effective group process helped level out the power differences between professionals and the public. The engagement of key stakeholders in the intervention design and implementation helped build policy support for public involvement. CONCLUSIONS: A number of interacting active ingredients structure and foster the public's legitimacy, credibility, and power. By paying greater attention to them, policymakers could develop and implement more effective public involvement interventions.

How do values shape technology design? An exploration of what makes the pursuit of health and wealth legitimate in academic spin-offs.

By actively supporting cooperation between academia, clinical settings and industry, several policy initiatives assume that the two policy agendas of health and wealth can be reconciled through the development of health technology. Our goal in this article is to shed light on the way the concurrent pursuit of health and wealth operates in practice by examining the valuation schemes, actions and decisions that shaped technology development in three Canadian spin-offs. Drawing on the sociology of judgement, our analytical framework conceives of technology development as a purposive collective action that unfolds in a normatively heterogeneous context (one pervaded with both corporate and public service mission values and norms). Our qualitative empirical analyses explore four valuation schemes and their corresponding regimes of engagement that characterise why and how technology developers commit themselves to addressing certain clinical, interactional, organisational and economic concerns throughout the development process. Our discussion suggests that the ability to reconcile health and wealth goals is to be found in the moral repertoires that provide meaning to, and render coherent technology developers' participation in corporate activities driven by economic growth.

Exploring routine use of telemedicine through a case study in rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines how telerehabilitation becomes part of existing and new clinical routines and identifies factors that enable or constrain its routine use. METHODS: An in-depth case study of a telemedicine program in rehabilitation implemented between an urban specialized rehabilitation center and a rural regional rehabilitation center was conducted. Using a conceptual framework based on Giddens' theory of structuration, a qualitative analysis was carried out using four data sources: focus groups and phone interviews (with health professionals, managers, and patients and their family members); telerehabilitation video recordings; and project documents (e.g., proposals, requests for funding, summaries, agendas of meetings, operating procedures, patient handouts, and tools for clinicians). RESULTS: In two rehabilitation programs for 1) patients who sustained a traumatic brain injury and 2) those who sustained a spinal cord injury, telerehabilitation was successfully incorporated into routine clinical practices for activities such as interdisciplinary care plans. However, for specialized clinical consultations or long-term patient follow-up, telerehabilitation was not successfully incorporated. Factors that facilitated or prevented the integration of telerehabilitation in routine practices stemmed from both the structure (norms, rules, resources, and values) and the agent (e.g., users of telerehabilitation, including clinicians, managers, and patients and their families) and include 1) shared beliefs and assumptions held by patient care team members regarding the nature of the clinical activities, and the perceptions of patients and their family members; 2) clinical and organizational leadership; 3) extent and type of telerehabilitation use; 4) available resources; and 5) collaborations already in place or needing to be developed. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides empirical evidence of how telerehabilitation activities may become integrated into routine day-to-day clinical activities.

Thematic analysis of tools for health innovators and organisation leaders to develop digital health solutions fit for climate change.

OBJECTIVES: While ethicists have largely underscored the risks raised by digital health solutions that operate with or without artificial intelligence (AI), limited research has addressed the need to also mitigate their environmental footprint and equip health innovators as well as organisation leaders to meet responsibility requirements that go beyond clinical safety, efficacy and ethics. Drawing on the Responsible Innovation in Health framework, this qualitative study asks: (1) what are the practice-oriented tools available for innovators to develop environmentally sustainable digital solutions and (2) how are organisation leaders supposed to support them in this endeavour? METHODS: Focusing on a subset of 34 tools identified through a comprehensive scoping review (health sciences, computer sciences, engineering and social sciences), our qualitative thematic analysis identifies and illustrates how two responsibility principles-environmental sustainability and organisational responsibility-are meant to be put in practice. RESULTS: Guidance to make environmentally sustainable digital solutions is found in 11 tools whereas organisational responsibility is described in 33 tools. The former tools focus on reducing energy and materials consumption as well as pollution and waste production. The latter tools highlight executive roles for data risk management, data ethics and AI ethics. Only four tools translate environmental sustainability issues into tangible organisational responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: Recognising that key design and development decisions in the digital health industry are largely shaped by market considerations, this study indicates that significant work lies ahead for medical and organisation leaders to support the development of solutions fit for climate change.