Background Twenty years ago, a “Guardian Angel” or comprehensive digital health advisor was proposed to empower patients to better manage their own health. This is now technically feasible, but most digital applications have narrow functions and target the relatively healthy, with few designed for those with the greatest needs. Objective The goal of the research was to identify unmet needs and key features of a general digital health advisor for frail elderly and people with multiple chronic conditions and their caregivers. Methods In-depth interviews were used to develop personas and use cases, and iterative feedback from participants informed the creation of a low-fidelity prototype of a digital health advisor. Results were shared with developers, investors, regulators, and health system leaders for suggestions on how this could be developed and disseminated. Results Patients highlighted the following goals: “live my life,” “love my life,” “manage my health,” and “feel understood.” Patients and caregivers reported interest in four functions to address these goals: tracking and insights, advice and information, providing a holistic picture of the patient, and coordination and communication. Experts and system stakeholders felt the prototype was technically feasible, and that while health care delivery organizations could help disseminate such a tool, it should be done in partnership with consumer-focused organizations. Conclusions This study describes the key features of a comprehensive digital health advisor, but to spur its development, we need to clarify the business case and address the policy, organizational, and cultural barriers to creating tools that put patients and their goals at the center of the health system.

BackgroundLow- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are developing novel approaches to healthcare that may be relevant to high-income countries (HICs). These include products, services, organizational processes, or policies that improve access, cost, or efficiency of healthcare. However, given the challenge of replication, it is difficult to identify innovations that could be successfully adapted to high-income settings. We present a set of criteria for evaluating the potential impact of LMIC innovations in HIC settings.MethodsAn initial framework was drafted based on a literature review, and revised iteratively by applying it to LMIC examples from the Center for Health Market Innovations (CHMI) program database. The resulting criteria were then reviewed using a modified Delphi process by the Reverse Innovation Working Group, consisting of 31 experts in medicine, engineering, management and political science, as well as representatives from industry and government, all with an expressed interest in reverse innovation.ResultsThe resulting 8 criteria are divided into two steps with a simple scoring system. First, innovations are assessed according to their success within the LMIC context according to metrics of improving accessibility, cost-effectiveness, scalability, and overall effectiveness. Next, they are scored for their potential for spread to HICs, according to their ability to address an HIC healthcare challenge, compatibility with infrastructure and regulatory requirements, degree of novelty, and degree of current collaboration with HICs. We use examples to illustrate where programs which appear initially promising may be unlikely to succeed in a HIC setting due to feasibility concerns.ConclusionsThis study presents a framework for identifying reverse innovations that may be useful to policymakers and funding agencies interested in identifying novel approaches to addressing cost and access to care in HICs. We solicited expert feedback and consensus on an empirically-derived set of criteria to create a practical tool for funders that can be used directly and tested prospectively using current databases of LMIC programs.

No abstract

BackgroundMany health service delivery models are adapting health services to meet rising demand and evolving health burdens in low- and middle-income countries. While innovative private sector models provide potential benefits to health care delivery, the evidence base on the characteristics and impact of such approaches is limited. We have developed a performance measurement framework that provides credible (relevant aspects of performance), feasible (available data), and comparable (across different organizations) metrics that can be obtained for private health services organizations that operate in resource-constrained settings.MethodsWe synthesized existing frameworks to define credible measures. We then examined a purposive sample of 80 health organizations from the Center for Health Market Innovations (CHMI) database (healthmarketinnovations.org) to identify what the organizations reported about their programs (to determine feasibility of measurement) and what elements could be compared across the sample.ResultsThe resulting measurement framework includes fourteen subgroups within three categories of health status, health access, and operations/delivery.ConclusionsThe emphasis on credible, feasible, and comparable measures in the framework can assist funders, program managers, and researchers to support, manage, and evaluate the most promising strategies to improve access to effective health services. Although some of the criteria that the literature views as important – particularly population coverage, pro-poor targeting, and health outcomes – are less frequently reported, the overall comparison provides useful insights.

No abstract

BackgroundEvidence shows that 30% of healthcare services are unnecessary and unlikely to benefit patients and may even be harmful. Choosing Wisely (CW) is a physician-initiated, international campaign (with campaigns in at least 20 countries) aimed at addressing unnecessary medical care through the provision of evidence-based resources and clinical guidance. Our objectives were to evaluate the sustainability potential of CW across four Ontario community hospitals and affiliated family health teams (FHT). MethodsWe recruited CW implementation teams across Ontario hospitals and their affiliated primary care family health teams (FHTs) to participate in a mixed-methods study to identify and respond to their CW implementation and sustainability challenges. The study involved the administration of a validated sustainability Survey at baseline, 6- and 12-months follow-up, and participation in two focus groups (at baseline and 6 months) to discuss identified successes and opportunities for improvement, and to respond to implementation and sustainability challenges through a team exercise involving the co-creation and implementation of an action plan to directly address them.ResultsFifteen CW implementation teams across five Ontario community hospitals and affiliated FHTs participated in the study. Three CW de-adoption priority areas were investigated by teams: de-prescribing of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and reducing Pre-Op testing and BUN/Urea lab testing. All 15 teams achieved a baseline sustainability team score that was well above the threshold of what is considered a potentially sustainable innovation (i.e., >55%). We observed steady improvements in sustainability scores over three time points across all primary care teams, which is a strong indication that CW is sustainable in these settings. Regardless of site or priority area, facilitators that were common across all teams were fit with existing processes and workflows, leadership support, and optimized team communication. Common challenges were: lack of awareness and buy-in, lack of leadership engagement or a champion, and lack of fit with existing workflow and culture. All teams identified at least one challenge (during the baseline focus groups) for which they co-designed and implemented a plan to address them aimed at maximizing the sustainability potential of their CW priority areas. ConclusionsEvaluating the sustainability potential of an innovation such as Choosing Wisely is critical to ensuring that they have the best potential for impact. Our work highlights that implementation teams can be empowered to influence their implementation efforts, and to realize positive outcomes for their healthcare services and patients.

BACKGROUND Twenty years ago, a “Guardian Angel” or comprehensive digital health advisor was proposed to empower patients to better manage their own health. This is now technically feasible, but most digital applications have narrow functions and target the relatively healthy, with few designed for those with the greatest needs. OBJECTIVE The goal of the research was to identify unmet needs and key features of a general digital health advisor for frail elderly and people with multiple chronic conditions and their caregivers. METHODS In-depth interviews were used to develop personas and use cases, and iterative feedback from participants informed the creation of a low-fidelity prototype of a digital health advisor. Results were shared with developers, investors, regulators, and health system leaders for suggestions on how this could be developed and disseminated. RESULTS Patients highlighted the following goals: “live my life,” “love my life,” “manage my health,” and “feel understood.” Patients and caregivers reported interest in four functions to address these goals: tracking and insights, advice and information, providing a holistic picture of the patient, and coordination and communication. Experts and system stakeholders felt the prototype was technically feasible, and that while health care delivery organizations could help disseminate such a tool, it should be done in partnership with consumer-focused organizations. CONCLUSIONS This study describes the key features of a comprehensive digital health advisor, but to spur its development, we need to clarify the business case and address the policy, organizational, and cultural barriers to creating tools that put patients and their goals at the center of the health system.

Background: Diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness among adults, but vision loss is preventable through regular screening. Urban areas in Canada have large numbers of unscreened individuals and teleophthalmology programs have been used to improve access and uptake of screening. The purpose of this study was to test different patient engagement approaches to expand teleophthalmology program to team-based primary care clinic in the city of Toronto, Canada.Methods: A teleophthalmology program was set up in a large urban academic team-based primary care practice. Patients over 18 years of age, with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of four engagement strategies: a phone call, a letter, a letter plus phone call, or usual care. Outreach was conducted by administrative staff within the clinic. The primary outcome was booking an appointment for diabetic retinopathy screening through a teleophthalmology program at the time of the call or within one week for the mail intervention. Results: A total of 23 patients in the phone, 28 in the mail, 32 in the mail and phone, and 27 in the control (usual care) were included in the analysis. After the intervention, 88% of patients in the phone intervention, 11% of patients in the mail group, and 100% in the mail and phone group booked an appointment with the teleophthalmology program compared to 0% in the control group. Phoning patients positively predicted patients booking a teleophthalmology appointment (p< .0001), while sending a letter had no effect. Conclusions: Patient engagement to book diabetic retinopathy screening via teleophthalmology in an urban academic team-based primary care practice using telephone calls was much more effective than letters or usual care. Practices that have access to a local DR screening programs and have the required resources to undertake such engagement strategies should consider using them as a means in improving their DR screening rates.