4.3 Article

The Lean and Agile Multi-dimensional Process (LAMP) - a new framework for rapid and iterative evidence generation to support health-care technology design and development

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF MEDICAL DEVICES
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 277-288

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2020.1743174

关键词

Evidence generation; early stage; health technology assessment; human factors; systems approach; health economics; innovations

资金

  1. English National institute for Health Research Medtech and In vitro diagnostics Cooperative (MICs) program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Health technology assessments (HTA) are tools for policymaking and resource allocation. Early HTAs are increasingly used in design and development of new technologies. Conducting early HTAs is challenging, due to a lack of evidence and significant uncertainties in the technology and the market. A multi-disciplinary approach is considered essential. However, an operational framework that can enable the integration of multi-dimensional evidence into commercialization remains lacking. Areas covered: We developed the Lean and Agile Multi-dimensional Process (LAMP), an early HTA framework, for embedding commercial decision-making in structured evidence generation activities, divided into phases. Diverse evidence in unmet needs, user acceptance, cost-effectiveness, and market competitiveness are being generated in increasing depth. This supports the emergence of design and value propositions that align technology capabilities and clinical and user needs. Expert opinion: We have been applying LAMP to working with medical device and diagnostic industry in the UK. The framework can be adapted to suit different technologies, decision needs, time scales, and resources. LAMP offers a practical solution to the multi-disciplinary approach. Methodologists drive the process by performing evidence generation and synthesis as and by enabling interactions between manufacturers, designers, clinicians, and other key stakeholders.

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

4.3
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