The search for the holy grail: frugal innovation in healthcare from low-income or middle-income countries for reverse innovation to developed countries

Capturing what and why in healthcare innovation

Understandings of innovation usually encompass multiple overlapping aspects, putting innovation terminology at risk of vagueness and overuse. However, innovation concepts are expected to remain powerful and useful in healthcare beyond the pandemic and into the future, so clarity will be helpful for effective leadership. To disentangle and disambiguate meanings within innovation, we offer a framework that captures and simplifies foundational substance within innovation concepts. Our method is an overview review of innovation literature from the 5 years preceding COVID-19. 51 sources were sampled and analysed for explicit definitions of healthcare innovation. Drawing on broad themes suggested from previous reviews, and gathering specific themes emergent from this literary dataset, we focused on categorising the nature of innovations (the what) and reasons given for them (the why). We identified 4 categories of what (ideas, artefacts, practice/process and structure) and 10 categories of why (economic value, practical value, experience, resource use, equity/accessibility, sustainability, behaviour change, specific-problem solving, self-justifying renewal and improved health). These categories reflect contrasting priorities and values, but do not substantially interfere or occlude each other. They can freely be additively combined to create composite definitions. This conceptual scheme affords insight and clarity for creating precise meanings, and making critical sense of imprecision, around innovation. Improved communication and clear shared understandings around innovative intentions, policies and practices cannot but improve the chances of enhanced outcomes. The all-inclusive character of this scheme leaves space for considering the limits of innovation, and notwithstanding well-established critiques, provides a basis for clarity in ongoing usage.

A Framework for Introducing Global Health Innovations to the US

Background:

Across the globe, there are successful health innovations that could help improve public health in US communities at lower cost and with higher effectiveness than standard practice. However, which factors should be considered to heighten the likelihood of successful transfer of global health ideas to the US still warrants more empirical investigation.

Objective:

This study aimed to develop a conceptual framework delineating important factors to be considered for successful introduction of global health innovations to US communities, based on diffusion of innovations literature and case studies of global health innovations that have been adopted in US communities.

Methods:

Five global health innovations adopted in US communities were selected based on expert panel recommendations and a review of academic and gray literatures. These innovations had diverse origins (Columbia, Mexico, South Africa, Sweden, and Wales) and exhibited various means of achieving desired health outcomes. We conducted archival research and 27 interviews (42 interviewees) with leaders and stakeholders of the five innovations to identify important factors for the transfer of global health innovations to the US.

Findings:

Six factors were determined to be important for global health innovation adoption in the US: (1) innovation attributes, (2) linking agents, (3) inter-organizational partnerships, (4) scale up strategies, (5) implementation processes and outcomes in US communities, and (6) policy and social context. These factors correspond well to factors emphasized in the diffusion of innovation literature, although the importance of some sub-factors (e.g., stigma regarding the origin of innovations) diverged from the literature.

Conclusions:

Based on our findings, we developed the Designing for Diffusion Framework for Global Health Innovations. The framework provides a comprehensive picture of factors that can be facilitators or hindrances for moving a global health innovation to the US to help smooth the diffusion process for better adoption and implementation in US communities.

The gender responsiveness of social entrepreneurship in health - A review of initiatives by Ashoka fellows

There are vocal calls to act on the gender-related barriers and inequities in global health. Still, there are gaps in implementing programmes that address and counter the relevant dynamics. As an approach that focuses on social problems and public service delivery gaps, social entrepreneurship has the potential to be a closer health sector partner to tackle and transform the influence of gender in health to achieve health systems goals better. Nevertheless, social entrepreneurs' engagement and impact on gender and health remain understudied. Using the Ashoka Fellows database as a sampling frame in November 2020 (n = 3352, health n = 129), we identified and reviewed the work of 21 organizations that implemented gender-responsive health-related programmes between 2000 and 2020. We applied the UNU-IIGH 6-I Analytic Framework to review the gender issues, interventions, included populations, investments, implementation, and impact in each organization. We found that a low proportion of fellows engage in gender-responsive health programming (<1%). Many organizations operate in low-and middle-income countries (16/21). The gender-responsive programmes include established health sector practices, to address gendered-cultural dynamics and deliver people-centred resources and services. Interestingly, most organizations self-identify as NGOs and rely on traditional grant funding. Fewer organizations (6/21) adopt market-based and income-generating solutions - a missed opportunity to actualise the potential of social entrepreneurship as an innovative health financing approach. There were few publicly available impact evaluations-a gap in practice established in social entrepreneurship. All organizations implemented programmes at community levels, with some cross-sectoral, structural, and policy-level initiatives. Most focused on sexual and reproductive health and gender-based violence for predominantly populations of women and girls. Closer partnerships between social entrepreneurs and gender experts in the health sector can provide reciprocally beneficial solutions for cross-sectorally and community designed innovations, health financing, evidence generation and impact tracking that improve the gender-responsiveness of health programmes, policies, and systems.

Development and performance testing of the low-cost, 3D-printed, smartphone-compatible 'Tansen Videolaryngoscope' vs. Pentax-AWS videolaryngoscope vs. direct Macintosh laryngoscope: A manikin study

BACKGROUND

While videolaryngoscopes help in the management of difficult airways, they remain too expensive for those with limited resources. We have developed a robust, re-usable, low-cost videolaryngoscope at United Mission Hospital Tansen, Nepal, by combining a smartphone-compatible endoscope capable of capturing still and video images with a three dimensional-printed, channelled, hyperangulated blade. The computer-aided design file for the videolaryngoscope blade was emailed and printed in London before evaluation of its performance on a difficult airway manikin.

OBJECTIVE

To benchmark the intubation performance of the Tansen Videolaryngoscope (TVL) in a 'difficult airway' manikin (SimMan3G, tongue fully inflated, neck stiff), against a commercially available videolaryngoscope and a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope.

DESIGN

A manikin study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Forty-three experienced videolaryngoscope users in two London teaching hospitals.

INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME

Primary outcome: Intubation success rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

grade of laryngeal view, median time to intubation and intubator-rated 'ease of use'.

RESULTS

Our device was equivalent to Pentax-AWS and superior to Macintosh laryngoscope (TVL vs. Pentax-AWS vs. Macintosh) in overall intubation success rate (88 vs. 98 vs. 67%, P < 0.05); grade of view (median Cormack-Lehane grade 1 vs. 1 vs. 3, P < 0.01); median time to intubation (17.5 vs. 15.5 vs. 27 s, P < 0.01). In subjective 'ease of use' scores, Pentax-AWS was superior to the TVL, which was superior to Macintosh laryngoscope (Likert-type 1 to 5 scale: 4 vs. 4 vs. 1, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

In this manikin simulation of a difficult airway, the 'TVL' was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope, and noninferior to the Pentax-AWS videolaryngoscope in intubation success rate, grade of laryngeal view and time to intubation. Participants found the Pentax device easier to use, and their feedback has given us valuable insights for improving our device. The TVL is well suited to settings in which resources are limited, being inexpensive, simple and re-usable.

Together we unite: the role of the Commonwealth in achieving universal health coverage through pharmaceutical care amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

The world currently faces unprecedented health challenges as COVID-19 poses a huge threat to health systems, economies and societies as we know it. The events of the current COVID-19 pandemic have further emphasised existing issues within our health systems. There is no better time than now to come together in global solidarity to tackle these evolving threats of COVID-19 pandemic. The Commonwealth is an ideally placed network to tackle these global health challenges, with its wide-reaching networks of governmental, non-governmental and civil society organisations across all continents. Although the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) originally scheduled to take place in Kigali in Rwanda 22-27 June 2020 has been postponed in view of COVID-19, Commonwealth country discussions are continuing, centred on the CHOGM key theme of 'Delivering a Common Future: Connecting, Innovating, Transforming', and five subthemes of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and Innovation; Trade; Environment; Governance and the Rule of Law; and Youth. The planned CHOGM and Commonwealth itself provides all members a timely platform to consider innovative ways to connect, innovate and transform healthcare to meet the needs of their populations. This commentary considers these five CHOGM subthemes and how member nations can be supported to achieve universal health coverage through optimising medicines use and outcomes, in the midst of a global pandemic in line with the global health agenda.

You Get What You Pay for on Health Care Question and Answer Platforms: Nonparticipant Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Seeking health information on the internet is very popular despite the debatable ability of lay users to evaluate the quality of health information and uneven quality of information available on the Web. Consulting the internet for health information is pervasive, particularly when other sources are inaccessible because of time, distance, and money constraints or when sensitive or embarrassing questions are to be explored. Question and answer (Q&A) platforms are Web-based services that provide personalized health advice upon the information seekers' request. However, it is not clear how the quality of health advices is ensured on these platforms.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify how platform design impacts the quality of Web-based health advices and equal access to health information on the internet.

METHODS

A total of 900 Q&As were collected from 9 Q&A platforms with different design features. Data on the design features for each platform were generated. Paid physicians evaluated the data to quantify the quality of health advices. Guided by the literature, the design features that affected information quality were identified and recorded for each Q&A platform. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and unbiased regression tree methods were used for the analysis.

RESULTS

Q&A platform design and health advice quality were related. Expertise of information providers (beta=.48; P=.001), financial incentive (beta=.4; P=.001), external reputation (beta=.28; P=.002), and question quality (beta=.12; P=.001) best predicted health advice quality. Virtual incentive, Web 2.0 mechanisms, and reputation systems were not associated with health advice quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to high-quality health advices on the internet is unequal and skewed toward high-income and high-literacy groups. However, there are possibilities to generate high-quality health advices for free.

Assessing Knowledge Sharing in Cancer Screening Among High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries: Insights From the International Cancer Screening Network

PURPOSE

As the global burden of cancer rises, global knowledge sharing of effective cancer control practices will be critical. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) of the US National Cancer Institute facilitates knowledge sharing to advance cancer screening research and practice. Our analysis assessed perceptions of ICSN's value and knowledge sharing in cancer screening among participants working in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

In 2018, the National Cancer Institute fielded a self-administered, online survey to 665 ICSN participants from both HICs and LMICs.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-three individuals (36.5%) completed the full survey. LMIC participants engaged in more diverse screening activities and had fewer years of experience (13.5% with more than 20 years of experience v 31%; P = .048) in screening and were more interested in cervical cancer (76.9% v 52.6%; P = .002) than HIC participants. However, both groups spent most of their time on research (30.8% LMIC v 36.6% HIC; P = .518) and agreed that the ICSN biennial meeting enabled them to learn from the experiences of both higher-resource (88.2% v 75.7%; P = .122) and lower-resource (61.8% v 68.0%; P = .507) settings. ICSN helped them form new collaborations for research and implementation (55.1% v 58.2%; P = .063); informed advances in research/evaluation (71.4% v 68.0%; P = .695), implementation (59.2% v 47.9%; P = .259), and policies in their settings (55.1% v 48.0%; P = .425); and provided the opportunity to contribute their knowledge and expertise to assist others (67.3% v 71.1%; P = .695).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that HIC and LMIC participants benefit from knowledge sharing at ICSN meetings although their interests, backgrounds, and needs differ. This points to the importance of international research networks that are inclusive of HIC and LMIC participants in cancer control to advance knowledge and effective practices globally.

Using a cross-contextual reciprocal learning approach in a multisite implementation research project to improve self-management for type 2 diabetes

This paper reports on the use of reciprocal learning for identifying, adopting and adapting a type 2 diabetes self-management support intervention in a multisite implementation trial conducted in a rural setting in a low-income country (Uganda), a periurban township in a middle-income country (South Africa) and socioeconomically disadvantaged suburbs in a high-income country (Sweden). The learning process was guided by a framework for knowledge translation and structured into three learning cycles, allowing for a balance between evidence, stakeholder interaction and contextual adaptation. Key factors included commitment, common goals, leadership and partnerships. Synergistic outcomes were the cocreation of knowledge, interventions and implementation methods, including reverse innovations such as adaption of community-linked models of care. Contextualisation was achieved by cross-site exchanges and local stakeholder interaction to balance intervention fidelity with local adaptation. Interdisciplinary and cross-site collaboration resulted in the establishment of learning networks. Limitations of reciprocal learning relate to the complexity of the process with unpredictable outcomes and the limited generalisability of results.

From Malawi to Middlesex: the case of the Arbutus Drill Cover System as an example of the cost-saving potential of frugal innovations for the UK NHS

Background

Musculoskeletal disease is one of the leading clinical and economic burdens of the UK health system, and the resultant demand for orthopaedic care is only set to increase. One commonly used and one of the most expensive hardware in orthopaedic surgery is the surgical drill and saw. Given financial constraints, the National Health Service (NHS) needs an economic way to address this recurring cost. We share evidence of one frugal innovation with potential for contributing to the NHS’ efficiency saving target of £22 billion by 2020.

Methods

Exploratory case study methodology was used to develop insights and understanding of the innovations potential for application in the NHS. Following a global search for potential frugal innovations in surgery, the Arbutus Drill Cover System was identified as an innovation with potential to deliver significant cost savings for the NHS in the UK.

Results

The Arbutus Drill Cover System is up to 94% cheaper than a standard surgical drill available in the UK. Clinical and laboratory tests show that performance, safety and usability are as good as current offerings in high-income countries and significantly better than hand drills typically used in low-and-middle-income countries. The innovation meets all regulatory requirements to be a medical device in the Europe and North America.

Conclusions

The innovation holds promise in reducing upfront and life span costs for core equipment used in orthopaedic surgery without loss of effectiveness or safety benchmarks. However, the innovation needs to navigate complicated and decentralised procurement processes and clinicians and healthcare leaders need to overcome cognitive bias.