Mobile apps to self-manage chronic low back pain: A realist synthesis exploring what works, for whom and in what circumstances

Objective

Chronic low back pain places a significant burden on healthcare services and sufferers. Clinical guidelines state that it is a condition that requires self-management. This realist synthesis explores how a mobile app could help people to self-manage chronic low back pain.

Method

Six databases and several non-academic sources were searched. In addition, nineteen realist interviews were conducted with stakeholders. Sources were selected and appraised for relevancy, richness, and rigour. Data was coded with analytical memos making retroductive inferences. Causal explanations were presented in context-mechanism-outcome configurations to form three programme theories.

Results

Data from 57 sources was synthesised to create 16 context-mechanism-outcome configurations and presented as three refined programme theories. The findings suggest people need to feel believed before they will engage with a self-management app. For those who feel abandoned by the healthcare service, a self-management app for chronic low back pain can be a valuable source of ongoing support and reduce feelings of social isolation.

Conclusion

A self-management app, if introduced appropriately and as adjunct to care, can be an empowering tool to self-manage chronic low back pain.

Innovation

Using input from key stakeholders enhances our understanding of the hidden generative mechanisms underpinning a programme's success or failure.

Preliminary results of a clinical research and innovation scholarship to prepare medical students to lead innovations in health care

There is consensus amongst national organizations to integrate health innovation and augmented intelligence (AI) into medical education. However, there is scant evidence to guide policymakers and medical educators working to revise curricula. This study presents academic, operational, and domain understanding outcomes for the first three cohorts of participants in a clinical research and innovation scholarship program.

Why is repositioning public health innovation towards a social paradigm necessary? A reflection on the field of public health through the examples of Ebola and Covid-19

Health innovations are generally oriented on a techno-economic vision. In this perspective, technologies are seen as an end in themselves, and there is no arrangement between the technical and the social values of innovation. This vision prevails in sanitary crises, in which management is carried out based on the search for punctual, reactive, and technical solutions to remedy a specific problem without a systemic/holistic, sustainable, or proactive approach. This paper attempts to contribute to the literature on the epistemological orientation of innovations in the field of public health. Taking the Covid-19 and Ebola crises as examples, the primary objective is to show how innovation in health is oriented towards a techno-economic paradigm. Second, we propose a repositioning of public health innovation towards a social paradigm that will put more emphasis on the interaction between social and health dimensions in the perspective of social change. We will conclude by highlighting the roles that public health could play in allowing innovations to have more social value, especially during sanitary crises.

Successes and challenges of implementing an integrative medicine practice in an allopathic medical center

Patient demand for integrative medicine is increasing, and presents a service opportunity for health care systems. Implementing integrative medicine in an allopathic health care setting poses unique challenges. Addressing organizational culture, finances, patient experience/physical space, and credentialing issues can help ensure success.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based health innovations in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic literature review

The unsuccessful implementation of health innovations occurs frequently, leading to missed opportunities where improvements could have been made on various aspects of a health system. The purpose of this study is to identify, assess and synthesise the facilitators and barriers to sustainably implementing evidence-based health innovations in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) context. To identify the LMIC specific facilitators and barriers, a systematic literature review was conducted. 79 studies were analysed, and the implementation barriers and facilitators identified in each study were extracted. The extracted barriers and facilitators were categorised and synthesized into one of seven concepts: context, innovation, relations and networks, institutions, knowledge, actors or resources. There were no substantial variations between the frequency that each concept was identified as a facilitator or barrier to implementation. However, resources, which includes time, human, financial and physical resources, was the most frequently mentioned concept; emphasising the need to focus on the resource situation in LMICs. This study contributes to the growing literature that aims to inform health system planners and evaluators in LMICs on effectively and sustainably implementing evidence-based health innovations.

Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review

Integrating health innovations into the health system is a complex endeavour that requires a well-designed planning process engaging key stakeholders. Stakeholder analyses lay the foundations to inform appropriate planning processes and undertake strategic actions. A systematic scoping review was performed to explore how stakeholder analyses are applied in health innovation planning processes and a guideline to report stakeholder analyses was developed. The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and DOAJ; grey literature was sought using Google. Articles reporting stakeholder analyses during the planning process of health policies, systems, products and technologies, and services and delivery methods were included. Fifty-one records were incorporated in the qualitative synthesis. Stakeholder analyses were conducted worldwide, used in all types of health innovations, applied in all phases of the planning process and conducted both prospectively and retrospectively. The steps followed to perform stakeholder analysis, the methods used, the stakeholder attributes analysed and how authors reported the analyses were heterogeneous. Forty-one studies reported the identification of stakeholders, 50 differentiated/categorised them and 25 analysed stakeholder relationships. Only some authors proposed future actions based on the results obtained in their stakeholder analysis. A list of Reporting Items for Stakeholder Analysis (i.e., the RISA tool) is proposed to contribute to the reporting guidelines to enhancing the quality and transparency of health research.

Early assessment of innovation in a healthcare setting

OBJECTIVES

Early assessment can assist in allocating resources for innovation effectively and produce the most beneficial technology for an institution. The aim of the present study was to identify methods and discuss the analytical approaches applied for the early assessment of innovation in a healthcare setting.

METHODS

Knowledge synthesis based on a structured search (using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases) and thematic analysis was conducted. An analytical framework based on the stage of innovation (developmental, introduction, or early diffusion) was applied to assess whether methods vary according to stage. Themes (type of innovation, study, analysis, study design, method, and main target audience) were then decided among the authors. Identified methods and analysis were discussed according to the innovation stage.

RESULTS

A total of 1,064 articles matched the search strategy. Overall, thirty-nine articles matched the inclusion criteria. The use of methods has a tendency to change according to the stage of innovation. Stakeholder analysis was a prominent method in the innovation stages and particularly in the developmental stage, as the introduction and early diffusion stage has more availability of data and may apply more complex methods. Barriers to the identified methods were also discussed as all of the innovation stages suffered from lack of data and substantial uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this review has identified applicable approaches for early assessment in different innovation stages, research is required regarding the value of the available data and methods and tools to enhance interactions between different parties at different stages of innovation.

A modified stakeholder participation assessment framework for design thinking in health innovation

Increasing pressure to improve health outcomes of populations with limited resources has prompted an emphasis on innovation. Design thinking has been proposed as a systematic approach to innovation in health, owing to its human-centred methodology that prioritises deep empathy for the end-users' desires, needs and challenges, which results in a better understanding of the problem in order to develop more comprehensive and effective solutions. A key feature of design thinking is stakeholder participation. If design thinking is going to be used as an approach to design and implement effective, equitable and sustainable health solutions, assessing stakeholder participation should be integrated into the process. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to i) provide an analysis of the literature on assessing stakeholder participation in health and ii) propose a framework based on the literature analysis that can be used to assess stakeholder participation during the design thinking process in health innovation. Drawing from participatory research in health, where stakeholder participation is recognised as a core principle that facilitates the implementation of solutions, we integrate stakeholder evaluation tools into the design thinking approach. We draw on an assessment framework that describes levels of stakeholder participation by their involvement in making decisions about their health. Using a 5-point continuum where the lower end represents the medical approach (professionals make all the decisions) and the upper end represents the community development approach (all stakeholders are key decision makers), we propose a modified assessment framework to evaluate stakeholder participation during the design thinking process. The modified framework provides a simple and practical tool to evaluate stakeholder participation. Stakeholders can rate their perceived level of participation, as well as that of the other stakeholders. Evaluation of participation in a design thinking project may be used to improve participation, and therefore the uptake and sustainability of innovations. The framework may also be used in design thinking beyond health applications.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2585-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessment of a multimedia-based prospective method to support public deliberations on health technology design: participant survey findings and qualitative insights

Background

Using a combination of videos and online short stories, we conducted four face-to-face deliberative workshops in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) with members of the public who later joined additional participants in an online forum to discuss the social and ethical implications of prospective technologies. This paper presents the participants’ appraisal of our intervention and provides novel qualitative insights into the use of videos and online tools in public deliberations.

Methods

We applied a mixed-method study design. A self-administered survey contained open- and close-ended items using a 5-level Likert-like scale. Absolute frequencies and proportions for the close-ended items were compiled. Qualitative data included field notes, the transcripts of the workshops and the participants’ contributions to the online forum. The qualitative data were used to flesh out the survey data describing the participants’ appraisal of: 1) the multimedia components of our intervention; 2) its deliberative face-to-face and online processes; and 3) its perceived effects.

Results

Thirty-eight participants contributed to the workshops and 57 to the online forum. A total of 46 participants filled-in the survey, for a response rate of 73 % (46/63). The videos helped 96 % of the participants to understand the fictional technologies and the online scenarios helped 98 % to reflect about the issues raised. Up to 81 % considered the arguments of the other participants to be well thought-out. Nearly all participants felt comfortable sharing their ideas in both the face-to-face (89 %) and online environments (93 %), but 88 % preferred the face-to-face workshop. As a result of the intervention, 85 % reflected more about the pros and cons of technology and 94 % learned more about the way technologies may transform society.

Conclusions

This study confirms the methodological feasibility of a deliberative intervention whose originality lies in its use of videos and online scenarios. To increase deliberative depth and foster a strong engagement by all participants, face-to-face and online components need to be well integrated. Our findings suggest that online tools should be designed by considering, one the one hand, the participants’ self-perceived ability to share written comments and, on the other hand, the ease with which other participants can respond to such contributions.

Promoting development and uptake of health innovations: The Nose to Tail Tool

Introduction

Health sector management is increasingly complex as new health technologies, treatments, and innovative service delivery strategies are developed. Many of these innovations are implemented prematurely, or fail to be implemented at scale, resulting in substantial wasted resources.  

Methods

A scoping review was conducted to identify articles that described the scale up process conceptually or that described an instance in which a healthcare innovation was scaled up. We define scale up as the expansion and extension of delivery or access to an innovation for all end users in a jurisdiction who will benefit from it.

Results

Sixty nine articles were eligible for review. Frequently described stages in the innovation process and contextual issues that influence progress through each stage were mapped. 16 stages were identified: 12 deliberation and 4 action stages. Included papers suggest that innovations progress through stages of maturity and the uptake of innovation depends on the innovation aligning with the interests of 3 critical stakeholder groups (innovators, end users and the decision makers) and is also influenced by 3 broader contexts (social and physical environment, the health system, and the regulatory, political and economic environment). The 16 stages form the rows of the Nose to Tail Tool (NTT) grid and the 6 contingency factors form columns. The resulting stage-by-issue grid consists of 72 cells, each populated with cell-specific questions, prompts and considerations from the reviewed literature.

Conclusion

We offer a tool that helps stakeholders identify the stage of maturity of their innovation, helps facilitate deliberative discussions on the key considerations for each major stakeholder group and the major contextual barriers that the innovation faces. We believe the NTT will help to identify potential problems that the innovation will face and facilitates early modification, before large investments are made in a potentially flawed solution.

Value of innovation for hematologic malignancies

BACKGROUND

Several novel drugs are dramatically improving both lifespan and quality-of-life of patients with blood cancers.

AIM

Prolonged disease duration and increased treatment costs for hematologic malignancies impose a relevant economic burden onto healthcare services, despite the low incidence of blood cancers. Therefore, an appropriate paradigm for valuing 'innovation' is urgently required in order to refine pricing and reimbursement decisions. Cost-per-QALY-gained is still the standard metric for assessing the 'incremental' value of new drugs; however, the high number of 'comparator' therapies and the huge variety of treatment sequences make plain two-treatment comparisons sub-optimal, while multiple-treatment and multiple-sequence comparisons require complex and less-transparent decision models. A repository of standard backbones for decision models might allow benchmarking and comparability among cost-effectiveness analyses; however, an international effort is required to build it up.

RESULTS

Deontology recommends that hematologists act in optimizing healthcare resources while preserving patient-physician alliance, but clinical practice guidelines do not support doctors in balancing cost against clinical outcomes. Decision models of chronic blood cancers unexpectedly proved that cost might be an appropriate value for innovation if treatments avoided severe toxicity and further lines of treatments, despite the eventually long duration of treatment and the competing risk of death due to comorbidity and old age.

CONCLUSION

The improved transparency of decision models allows sharing of relevant structural and analytic parameters (i.e., time horizon, comparator treatments, hierarchy of end-point, assumptions, source of data, sub-group analyses) by stakeholders, physicians and patients, making health economics a noble 'translator' of values for innovation.

The diuresis clinic: a new paradigm for the treatment of mild decompensated heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure results in approximately 1 million hospital admissions annually in the United States and is the leading cause of 30-day readmissions.

METHODS

This study explores the impact of a diuresis clinic on heart failure outcomes and cost. Data were collected prospectively on all consecutive patients who received intravenous diuretics and multidisciplinary care in the clinic from its establishment from October 2011 to December 2012, as well as a comparison cohort of patients with heart failure who were admitted to the hospital for <48 hours. The percentage of hospitalized days was calculated for both cohorts 180 days before and 180 days after each patient's index visit.

RESULTS

In the diuresis clinic group, 106 patients (mean age, 68.2 ± 13 years; 48% were women) were treated over 328 visits (1-22 visits per person), with a mean intravenous furosemide dose of 100 mg, average urine output of 1460 ± 730 mL, and weight loss of 2.3 ± 1.8 kg. Days hospitalized decreased from 38.3 to 31.2 per 1000 patient-days after the index diuresis clinic visit (P < .01). In the comparison group, 143 patients (mean age, 69 ± 16 years; 54% were women) were admitted for <48 hours. Days hospitalized increased from 14.4 to 21.0 per 1000 patient-days after index admission (P < .01). On multivariate analysis, the diuresis clinic was associated with 3 fewer days in the hospital per 180 days per patient, with an estimated annual savings of $12,113 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a brief hospital stay, treatment of mild decompensated heart failure in a diuresis clinic resulted in a substantial and cost-effective decline in the rate of subsequent hospitalization.

Health innovation for patient safety improvement

Medication error has been identified as a major factor affecting patient safety. Many innovative efforts such as Computerised Physician Order Entry (CPOE), a Pharmacy Information System, automated dispensing machines and Point of Administration Systems have been carried out with the aim of improving medication safety. However, areas remain that require urgent attention. One main area will be the lack of continuity of care due to the breakdown of communication between multiple healthcare providers. Solutions may include consideration of "health smart cards" that carry vital patient medical information in the form of a "credit card" or use of the Malaysian identification card. However, costs and technical aspects associated with the implementation of this health smart card will be a significant barrier. Security and confidentiality, on the other hand, are expected to be of primary concern to patients. Challenges associated with the implementation of a health smart card might include physician buy-in for use in his or her everyday practice. Training and technical support should also be available to ensure the smooth implementation of this system. Despite these challenges, implementation of a health smart card moves us closer to seamless care in our country, thereby increasing the productivity and quality of healthcare.