Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-hcvhd Total loading time: 1.156 Render date: 2021-04-14T23:04:13.213Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Early assessment of innovation in a healthcare setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2019

Linn Nathalie Støme
Affiliation:
Oslo University Hospital, Centre for Connected Care
Tron Moger
Affiliation:
University of Oslo, Institute for Health and Society
Kristian Kidholm
Affiliation:
University of Odense, Centre for Innovative Medical Technology
Kari J. Kværner
Affiliation:
Oslo University Hospital, Centre for Connected Care
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

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.

Type
Method
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1.Strønen, F, Hoholm, T, Kværner, KJ, Støme, LN (2017) Dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities: The case of the ‘innovation clinic’. J Entrep Manag Innov 13, 89116.Google Scholar
2.Tarricone, R, Torbica, A, Drummond, M (2017) Challenges in the assessment of medical devices: The MedtecHTA Project. Health Econ 26 (Suppl 1), 512.10.1002/hec.3469CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Kristensen, FB, Lampe, K, Chase, DL, Lee-Robin, SH, Wild, C, Moharra, M, et al. (2009) Practical tools and methods for health technology assessment in Europe: Structures, methodologies, and tools developed by the European Network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(Suppl 2):18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Husereau, D, Henshall, C, Sampietro-Colom, L, Thomas, S (2016) Changing health technology assessment paradigms? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 32, 191199.10.1017/S0266462316000386CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Sampietro-Colom, L, Lach, K, Cicchetti, A, Kidholm, K, Pasternack, I, Fure, B, et al. (2015) The AdHopHTA handbook: A handbook of hospitalbased Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA); Public deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018); http://www.adhophta.eu/sites/files/adhophta/media/adhophta_handbook_website.pdf (accessed January 3, 2019).Google Scholar
6.Nielsen, CP, Funch, TM, Kristensen, FB (2011) Health technology assessment: Research trends and future priorities in Europe. J Health Serv Res Policy 16(Suppl 2):615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Packer, C, Simpson, S, de Almeida, RT (2015) Euroscan International Network Member Agencies: Their structure, processes, and outputs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 31, 7885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Hartz, S, John, J (2008) Contribution of economic evaluation to decision making in early phases of product development: A methodological and empirical review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24, 465472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Redekop, K, Mikudina, B (2013) Early medical technology assessments of medical devices and tests. J Health Policy 1, 2637.Google Scholar
10.Fasterholdt, I, Krahn, M, Kidholm, K, Tderstræde, KB, Møller Pedersen, KM (2017) Review of early assessment models of innovative medical technologies. Health Policy 121, 870879.10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.06.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.PRISMA. 2017. http://www.prisma-statement.org/ (accessed January 3, 2019).Google Scholar
12.Assessment(INAHTA) INoAfHT. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment(INAHTA). http://www.inahta.org/HTA/ (accessed April 16, 2014).Google Scholar
13.Ijzerman, MJ, Steuten, LM (2011) Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access: A review of methods and applications. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 9, 331347.10.2165/11593380-000000000-00000CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Steuten, LM (2016) Early stage health technology assessment for precision biomarkers in oral health and systems medicine. OMICS 20, 3035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Retel, VP, Joosten, SE, van Harten, WH (2014) Expert elicitation used for early technology assessment to inform on cost-effectiveness of next generation sequencing. Value Health 17, A652.10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.2373CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Beuscart-Zephir, MC, Watbled, L, Carpentier, AM, Degroisse, M, Alao, O (2002) A rapid usability assessment methodology to support the choice of clinical information systems: A case study. Proc AMIA Symp, 4650.Google Scholar
17.Brear, M (2006) Evaluating telemedicine: Lessons and challenges. Health Inf Manage J 35, 2331.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Markiewicz, K, van Til, JA, Ijzerman, MJ (2014) Medical devices early assessment methods: Systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 30, 137146.10.1017/S0266462314000026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Bartelmes, M, Neumann, U, Luhmann, D, Schonermark, MP, Hagen, A (2009) Methods for assessment of innovative medical technologies during early stages of development. GMS Health Technol Assess 5, Doc15.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Cosh, E, Girling, A, Lilford, R, McAteer, H, Young, T (2007) Investing in new medical technologies: A decision framework. J Commer Biotechnol 13, 263271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Di Capua, P, Wu, B, Sednew, R, Ryan, G, Wu, S (2016) Complexity in redesigning depression care: Comparing intention versus implementation of an automated depression screening and monitoring program. Popul Health Manag 19, 349356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Retel, VP, Joore, MA, Linn, SC, Rutgers, EJ, van Harten, WH (2012) Scenario drafting to anticipate future developments in technology assessment. BMC Res Notes 5, 442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Sayres, LC, Allyse, M, Cho, MK (2012) Integrating stakeholder perspectives into the translation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for aneuploidy. Genome Med 4, 49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Kip, MM, Steuten, LM, Koffijberg, H, Ijzerman, MJ, Kusters, R (2018) Using expert elicitation to estimate the potential impact of improved diagnostic performance of laboratory tests: A case study on rapid discharge of suspected non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients. J Eval Clin Pract 24, 3141.10.1111/jep.12626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Jastremski, M, Jastremski, C, Shepherd, M, Friedman, V, Porembka, D, Smith, R, et al. (1995) A model for technology assessment as applied to closed loop infusion systems. Technology Assessment Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med 23, 17451755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Gaultney, JG, Sanhueza, E, Janssen, JJ, Redekop, WK, Uyl-de Groot, CA (2011) Application of cost-effectiveness analysis to demonstrate the potential value of companion diagnostics in chronic myeloid leukemia. Pharmacogenomics 12, 411421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Harris-Roxas, BF, Harris, PJ (2007) Learning by doing: The value of case studies of health impact assessment. N S W Public Health Bull 18, 161163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Porzsolt, F, Ghosh, AK, Kaplan, RM (2009) Qualitative assessment of innovations in healthcare provision. BMC Health Serv Res 9, 50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Esposito, D, Taylor, EF, Gold, M (2009) Using qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate small-scale disease management pilot programs. Popul Health Manag 12, 315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Retel, VP, Hummel, MJ, van Harten, WH (2008) Early phase technology assessment of nanotechnology in oncology. Tumori 94, 284290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Abrishami, P, Boer, A, Horstman, K (2015) How can we assess the value of complex medical innovations in practice? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 15, 369371.10.1586/14737167.2015.1037834CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Henshall, C, Schuller, T (2013) Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 29, 353359.10.1017/S0266462313000378CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Bridges, JF (2006) Lean systems approaches to health technology assessment: A patient-focused alternative to cost-effectiveness analysis. PharmacoEconomics 24(Suppl 2), 101109.10.2165/00019053-200624002-00011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Kummer, TF, Schafer, K, Todorova, N (2013) Acceptance of hospital nurses toward sensor-based medication systems: A questionnaire survey. Int J Nursing Stud 50, 508517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Gantner-Bar, M, Meier, F, Kolominsky-Rabas, P, Djanatliev, A, Metzger, A, Voigt, W, et al. (2014) Prospective Assessment of an innovative test for prostate cancer screening using the VITA process model framework. Stud Health Technol Inform 205, 236240.Google ScholarPubMed
36.Hartz, S, John, J (2009) Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play? Health Policy 89, 184192.10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.05.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Joosten, SE, Retel, VP, Coupe, VM, van den Heuvel, MM, van Harten, WH (2016) Scenario drafting for early technology assessment of next generation sequencing in clinical oncology. BMC Cancer 16, 66.10.1186/s12885-016-2100-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Girling, A, Young, T, Brown, C, Lilford, R (2010) Early-stage valuation of medical devices: The role of developmental uncertainty. Value Health 13, 585591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Craig, JA, Carr, L, Hutton, J, Glanville, J, Iglesias, CP, Sims, AJ (2015) A review of the economic tools for assessing new medical devices. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 13, 1527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Postmus, D, de Graaf, G, Hillege, HL, Steyerberg, EW, Buskens, E (2012) A method for the early health technology assessment of novel biomarker measurement in primary prevention programs. Stat Med 31, 27332744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Douma, KF, Karsenberg, K, Hummel, MJ, Bueno-de-Mesquita, JM, van Harten, WH (2007) Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23, 162168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Retel, VP, Bueno-de-Mesquita, JM, Hummel, MJ, van de Vijver, MJ, Douma, KF, Karsenberg, K, et al. (2009) Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) as a tool in coverage with evidence development: The case of the 70-gene prognosis signature for breast cancer diagnostics. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25, 7383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Retel, VP, Hummel, MJ, van Harten, WH (2009) Review on early technology assessments of nanotechnologies in oncology. Mol Oncol 3, 394401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Retel, VP, Grutters, JP, van Harten, WH, Joore, MA (2013) Value of research and value of development in early assessments of new medical technologies. Value Health 16, 720728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Chang, WR, McLean, IP (2006) CUSUM: A tool for early feedback about performance? BMC Med Res Methodol 6:8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Niederlander, C, Kriza, C, Wahlster, P, Djanatliev, A, Kolominsky-Rabas, P (2013) Early technology foresight for the development of biomarkers for prostate cancer screening: Prospective Health Technology Assessment (ProHTA). Eur J Cancer 49, S199.Google Scholar
47.Banta, HD, Gelijns, AC, Griffioen, J, Graaff, PJ (1987) An inquiry concerning future health care technology: Methods and general results. Health Policy 8, 251264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48.Manetti, S, Cecchi, F, Sgandurra, G, Cioni, G, Laschi, C, Dario, P, et al. (2015) Early stage economic evaluation of caretoy system for early intervention in preterm infants at risk of neurodevelopmental disorders. Value Health 18, A358.10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.683CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49.Gagnon, MP, Candas, B, Desmartis, M, Gagnon, J, La Roche, D, Rhainds, M, et al. (2014) Involving patient in the early stages of health technology assessment (HTA): A study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 14:273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50.Gollamudi, SS, Topol, EJ, Wineinger, NE (2016) A framework for smartphone-enabled, patient-generated health data analysis. Peerj 4, e2284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.Ijzerman, MJ, Koffijberg, H, Fenwick, E, Krahn, M (2017) Emerging use of early health technology assessment in medical product development: A scoping review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics 35, 727740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Støme et al. supplementary material

Appendix

File 17 KB

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 59
Total number of PDF views: 250 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th February 2019 - 14th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Early assessment of innovation in a healthcare setting
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Early assessment of innovation in a healthcare setting
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Early assessment of innovation in a healthcare setting
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *