4.2 Article

Early assessment of innovation in a healthcare setting

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462318003719

关键词

Early assessment; Health innovation; Organizational innovation; Knowledge synthesis; Health technology assessment

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council [237766/O30]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据