'They hear "Africa" and they think that there can't be any good services'--perceived context in cross-national learning: a qualitative study of the barriers to Reverse Innovation

Reversing the trend: a scoping review of health innovation transfer or exchange from low- and middle-income countries to high-income countries

The transfer of innovations from low and middle-income countries (LMICs) to high-income countries (HICs) has received little attention, leaving gaps in the understanding of the process, its benefits and the factors influencing it. This scoping review, part of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) project and the focus for a 2022 NIH-sponsored workshop on Global Health Reciprocal Innovation, sought to identify publications describing health innovations that were researched, developed and implemented in LMICs and adapted to address similar health challenges in HICs. A protocol was written a priori and registered on Open Science Framework. Four databases were searched for articles published in English from 2000 to 2022 and described health innovations developed in LMICs and were transferred to HICs. Using Covidence, two reviewers initially screened the title and abstract and then the full text; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Two reviewers collected the data from each article using Covidence and Microsoft Excel; discrepancies were resolved by a separate third reviewer. 7191 records were retrieved and screened of which 12 studies were included. Various frameworks and methodologies were employed in these studies, with a particular emphasis on adaptation and adoption of innovations. The review uncovered different paradigms of LMIC to HIC innovation transfer and exchange, including unidirectional transfers from LMICs to HICs as well as bidirectional or multidirectional mutually beneficial exchanges. The use of both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods was common across all the included articles. Facilitators for innovation transfers included stakeholder engagement, relevance of local context, simplicity, and sufficient funding, promotion and branding. Barriers to transfers were mostly the opposite of the facilitators. Our results highlighted the underexplored field of LMIC to HIC innovation transfer and exchange and lay the foundation for future research studies.

Reciprocal coproduction as a basis for the diffusion of global health innovations

Global health reciprocal innovations originate in low-income and middle-income countries as well as high-income countries before their developers communicate about them with potential adopters in other countries as a transnational team. While communication technology has enabled a more rapid and broader sharing of information about innovations to prevent disease and improve health, innovations of various types have spread among countries, at all levels of income, for many centuries. In this article, we introduce the idea of reciprocal coproduction as a basis for the international sharing of information about innovations that exhibit potential for improving global health. Reciprocal coproduction occurs through two relational team-based processes: developer-led reinvention of an innovation so that it retains its desirable causal effects and implementer-led adaptation of that innovation so that it is compatible with new contexts into which it is introduced. Drawing on research and our own experiences across a range of health issues, we discuss common barriers to reciprocal coproduction and the diffusion of reciprocal innovations. We conclude with lessons drawn from dissemination and implementation science about the effective translation of reciprocal innovations from country to country so that researchers, policy-makers and social entrepreneurs can best ensure equity, accelerate adoptions and heighten the likelihood that global health reciprocal innovations will make a positive difference in health.

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.

Community-Level Health Interventions are Crucial in the Post-COVID-19 Era: Lessons from Africa’s Proactive Public Health Policy Interventions

Measured against the gloomy pre-COVID-19 predictions, Africa has fared far better than most regions in managing the pandemic. This much, however, has received less attention. This paper answers the question: how have the new rituals of self determination in public health affected the successful management of COVID-19 in Africa, and how can the continent and the rest of the world build on such models/lessons in the post-pandemic era? I employ emancipatory theorising in reviewing literature on approaches to governance of COVID-19. The rationale is to empower the grassroots and to accentuate the urgency for a decolonized local ownership of the governance of all public health crises. I argue that while traditional international cooperation is necessary for additional resource and expertise from the global North for sustainable health, the political will of Southern governments remains fundamental for any extraordinary success due to its grassroots/community orientation towards non-pharmaceutical interventions and initial pre-emptive rituals. The novelty in this paper is that it lays bare the ignored African responses and lessons and reveals how to harness protective communitarian ethos in solving future crises. The paper further provides population health as an ‘immune system’ policy framework for explaining and predicting how a scientific and human-centrered grassroots leadership can yield optimal outcomes in any future crisis.

A novel data solution to inform curriculum decolonisation: the case of the Imperial College London Masters of Public Health

There is increasing interest within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to examine curricula for legacies of colonialism or empire that might result in a preponderance of references to research from the global north. Prior attempts to study reading lists for author geographies have employed resource-intensive audit and data collection methods based on manual searching and tagging individual reading list items by characteristics such as author country or place of publication. However, these manual methods are impractical for large reading lists with hundreds of citations that change over instances the course is taught. Laborious manual methods may explain why there is a lack of quantitative evidence to inform this debate and the understanding of geographic distribution of curricula. We describe a novel computational method applied to 568 articles, representing 3166 authors from the Imperial College London Masters in Public Health programme over two time periods (2017–18 and 2019–20). Described with summary statistics, we found a marginal shift away from global north-affiliated authors on the reading lists of one Masters course over two time periods and contextualise the role and limitations of the use of quantitative data in the decolonisation discourse. The method provides opportunities for educators to examine the distribution of course readings at pace and over time, serving as a useful point of departure to engage in decolonisation debates.

From reverse innovation to global innovation in animal health: A review

Reverse innovation refers to learning from or diffusion of innovations developed in low income settings and further translated to industrialized countries. There is lack of consensus regarding terminology, but the idea that innovations in low-income countries are promising for adoption in high-income contexts is not new. However, in healthcare literature globally, the vast majority of publications referring to 'disruptive innovation' were published in the last ten years. To assess the potential of innovative developments and technologies for improving animal health, we initiated a literature review in 2020. We used a combined approach, incorporating targeted searching in PubMed using a key word algorithm with a snowball technique, to identify 120 relevant publications and extract data for qualitative coding. Heterogeneity of articles precluded meta-analysis, quality scoring and risk of bias analysis. We can distinguish technical innovations like new digital devices, diagnostic tests and procedures, and social innovations of intersectoral cooperation. We profile two case studies to describe potential global innovations: an integrated surveillance and response system in Somali Regional State, Ethiopia and a blockchain secured One Health intervention to optimally provide post-exposure prophylaxis for rabies exposed people in West Africa. Innovation follows no borders and can also occur in low-income settings, under constraints of cost, lack of services and infrastructure. Lower administrative and legal barriers may contribute to produce innovations that would not be possible under conditions of high density of regulation. We recommend using the term global innovation, which highlights those emanating from international partnership to solve problems of global implications.

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.

Innovative Models in Mental Health Delivery Systems: Task Sharing Care with Non-specialist Providers to Close the Mental Health Treatment Gap

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Most people do not have access to adequate mental health care, and lack of skilled human resources is a major factor. We provide a narrative review of approaches to implementing task sharing-engaging non-specialist providers-to deliver mental health care.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is strong evidence both for the effectiveness of task sharing as a means of delivering care for a range of conditions across settings and for the effectiveness of non-specialist providers and health workers in delivering elements of culturally adapted psychosocial and psychological interventions for common and severe mental disorders. Key approaches to facilitate task sharing of care include balanced care, collaborative care, sustained training and supervision, use of trans-diagnostic interventions based on a dimensional approach to wellness and illness, and the use of emerging digital technologies. Non-specialist providers and health workers are well positioned to deliver evidence-based interventions for mental disorders, and a variety of delivery approaches can support, facilitate, and sustain this innovation. These approaches should be used, and evaluated, to increase access to mental health services.

Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians

Unconscious bias may interfere with the interpretation of research from some settings, particularly from lower-income countries. Most studies of this phenomenon have relied on indirect outcomes such as article citation counts and publication rates; few have addressed or proven the effect of unconscious bias in evidence interpretation. In this randomized, blinded crossover experiment in a sample of 347 English clinicians, we demonstrate that changing the source of a research abstract from a low- to a high-income country significantly improves how it is viewed, all else being equal. Using fixed-effects models, we measured differences in ratings for strength of evidence, relevance, and likelihood of referral to a peer. Having a high-income-country source had a significant overall impact on respondents' ratings of relevance and recommendation to a peer. Unconscious bias can have far-reaching implications for the diffusion of knowledge and innovations from low-income countries.

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.

Summary

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.

All Health Partnerships, Great and Small: Comparing Mandated With Emergent Health Partnerships Comment on "Evaluating Global Health Partnerships: A Case Study of a Gavi HPV Vaccine Application Process in Uganda"

The plurality of healthcare providers and funders in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has given rise to an era in which health partnerships are becoming the norm in international development. Whether mandated or emergent, three common drivers are essential for ensuring successful health partnerships: trust; a diverse and inclusive network; and a clear governance structure. Mandated and emergent health partnerships operate as very different models and at different scales. However, there is potential for sharing and learning between these types of partnerships. Emergent health partnerships, especially as they scale up, may learn from mandated partnerships about establishing clear governance mandates for larger and more complex partnerships. By combining social network analysis, which can detect key actors and stakeholders that could add value to existing emergent partnerships, with Brinkerhoff ’s comprehensive framework for partnership evaluation, we can identify a set of tools that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of emergent health partnerships.

The Internationalization Challenge: Where to Access Innovation

Pharma innovation is becoming increasingly global, partly due to the lure of serving new markets, partly because of the need to access early new technology and talent wherever it emerges. Apart from the established centers of innovation in the United States, Europe and Japan, India, China and Singapore are rising attractors for global life science R&D. China as a pharma market and host of pharma R&D is highlighted as a case study, both from the angle of foreign R&D investors and from the perspective of indigenous Chinese players. Given the significant cost pressures in mature markets, reverse innovation in healthcare has drawn considerable attention by local governments.

Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test

Background

With an increasing array of innovations and research emerging from low-income countries there is a growing recognition that even high-income countries could learn from these contexts. It is well known that the source of a product influences perception of that product, but little research has examined whether this applies also in evidence-based medicine and decision-making. In order to examine likely barriers to learning from low-income countries, this study uses established methods in cognitive psychology to explore whether healthcare professionals and researchers implicitly associate good research with rich countries more so than with poor countries.

Methods

Computer-based Implicit Association Test (IAT) distributed to healthcare professionals and researchers. Stimuli representing Rich Countries were chosen from OECD members in the top ten (>$36,000 per capita) World Bank rankings and Poor Countries were chosen from the bottom thirty (<$1000 per capita) countries by GDP per capita, in both cases giving attention to regional representation. Stimuli representing Research were descriptors of the motivation (objective/biased), value (useful/worthless), clarity (precise/vague), process (transparent/dishonest), and trustworthiness (credible/unreliable) of research. IAT results are presented as a Cohen’s d statistic. Quantile regression was used to assess the contribution of covariates (e.g. age, sex, country of origin) to different values of IAT responses that correspond to different levels of implicit bias. Poisson regression was used to model dichotomized responses to the explicit bias item.

Results

Three hundred twenty one tests were completed in a four-week period between March and April 2015. The mean Implicit Association Test result (a standardized mean relative latency between congruent and non-congruent categories) for the sample was 0.57 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.61) indicating that on average our sample exhibited moderately strong implicit associations between Rich Countries and Good Research. People over 40 years of age were less likely to exhibit pro-poor implicit associations, and being a peer reviewer contributes to a more pro-poor association.

Conclusions

The majority of our participants associate Good Research with Rich Countries, compared to Poor Countries. Implicit associations such as these might disfavor research from poor countries in research evaluation, evidence-based medicine and diffusion of innovations.

Do International Health Partnerships contribute to reverse innovation? a mixed methods study of THET-supported partnerships in the UK

BACKGROUND

International health partnerships (IHPs) are changing, with an increased emphasis on mutual accountability and joint agenda setting for both the high- and the low- or middle-income country (LMIC) partners. There is now an important focus on the bi-directionality of learning however for the UK partners, this typically focuses on learning at the individual level, through personal and professional development. We sought to evaluate whether this learning also takes the shape of 'Reverse Innovation' -when an idea conceived in a low-income country is subsequently adopted in a higher-income country.

METHODS

This mixed methods study used an initial scoping survey of all the UK-leads of the Tropical Health Education Trust (THET)-supported International Health Partnerships (n = 114) to ascertain the extent to which the IHPs are or have been vehicles for Reverse Innovation. The survey formed the sampling frame for further deep-dive interviews to focus on volunteers' experiences and attitudes to learning from LMICs. Interviews of IHP leads (n = 12) were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Survey data was analysed descriptively. Interview transcripts were coded thematically, using an inductive approach.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 27% (n = 34). The majority (70%) strongly agreed that supporting LMIC partners best described the mission of the partnership but only 13% of respondents strongly agreed that learning about new innovations and models was a primary mission of their partnership. Although more than half of respondents reported having observed innovative practice in the LMIC, only one IHP respondent indicated that this has led to Reverse Innovation. Interviews with a sample of survey respondents revealed themes primarily around how learning is conceptualised, but also a central power imbalance between the UK and LMIC partners. Paternalistic notions of knowledge could be traced to partnership power dynamics and latent attitudes to LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the global flow of innovation, if High-income countries (HICs) are to benefit from LMIC practices, it is paramount to keep an open mind about where such learning can come from. Making the potential for learning more explicit and facilitating innovation dissemination upon return will ultimately underpin the success of adoption.

Does a research article's country of origin affect perception of its quality and relevance? A national trial of US public health researchers

OBJECTIVES

The source of research may influence one's interpretation of it in either negative or positive ways, however, there are no robust experiments to determine how source impacts on one's judgment of the research article. We determine the impact of source on respondents' assessment of the quality and relevance of selected research abstracts.

DESIGN

Web-based survey design using four healthcare research abstracts previously published and included in Cochrane Reviews.

SETTING

All Council on the Education of Public Health-accredited Schools and Programmes of Public Health in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

899 core faculty members (full, associate and assistant professors)

INTERVENTION

Each of the four abstracts appeared with a high-income source half of the time, and low-income source half of the time. Participants each reviewed the same four abstracts, but were randomly allocated to receive two abstracts with high-income source, and two abstracts with low-income source, allowing for within-abstract comparison of quality and relevance

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Within-abstract comparison of participants' rating scores on two measures--strength of the evidence, and likelihood of referral to a peer (1-10 rating scale). OR was calculated using a generalised ordered logit model adjusting for sociodemographic covariates.

RESULTS

Participants who received high income country source abstracts were equal in all known characteristics to the participants who received the abstracts with low income country sources. For one of the four abstracts (a randomised, controlled trial of a pharmaceutical intervention), likelihood of referral to a peer was greater if the source was a high income country (OR 1.28, 1.02 to 1.62, p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

All things being equal, in one of the four abstracts, the respondents were influenced by a high-income source in their rating of research abstracts. More research may be needed to explore how the origin of a research article may lead to stereotype activation and application in research evaluation.