Assessing Health Technology Implementation During Academic Research and Early-stage Development: Support Tools for Awareness and Guidance: a Review

Overview

Journal Front Digit Health

Specialty Medical Informatics

Date 2024 Oct 29

PMID 39469424

Authors

Meyke Roosink

Lisette van Gemert-Pijnen

Ruud Verdaasdonk

Saskia M Kelders

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

For successful health technology innovation and implementation it is key to, in an early phase, understand the problem and whether a proposed innovation is the best way to solve the problem. This review performed an initial exploration of published tools that support innovators in academic research and early stage development with awareness and guidance along the end-to-end process of development, evaluation and implementation of health technology innovations. Tools were identified from scientific literature as well as in grey literature by non-systematic searches in public research databases and search engines, and based on expert referral. A total number of 14 tools were included. Tools were classified as either readiness level tool ( = 6), questionnaire/checklist tool ( = 5) or guidance tool ( = 3). A qualitative analysis of the tools identified 5 key domains, 5 innovation phases and 3 implementation principles. All tools were mapped for (partially) addressing the identified domains, phases, and principles. The present review provides awareness of available tools and of important aspects of health technology innovation and implementation (vs. non-technological or non-health related technological innovations). Considerations for tool selection include for example the purpose of use (awareness or guidance) and the type of health technology innovation. Considerations for novel tool development include the specific challenges in academic and early stage development settings, the translation of implementation to early innovation phases, and the importance of multi-disciplinary strategic decision-making. A remaining attention point for future studies is the validation and effectiveness of (self-assessment) tools, especially in the context of support preferences and available support alternatives.

References

Mummah S, Robinson T, King A, Gardner C, Sutton S . IDEAS (Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share): A Framework and Toolkit of Strategies for the Development of More Effective Digital Interventions to Change Health Behavior. J Med Internet Res. 2016; 18(12):e317. PMC: 5203679. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5927. View

Nilsen P . Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015; 10:53. PMC: 4406164. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0. View

Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, ACourt C . Analysing the role of complexity in explaining the fortunes of technology programmes: empirical application of the NASSS framework. BMC Med. 2018; 16(1):66. PMC: 5950199. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1050-6. View

Van Dyk L . A review of telehealth service implementation frameworks. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11(2):1279-98. PMC: 3945538. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110201279. View

Damschroder L, Reardon C, Widerquist M, Lowery J . The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. 2022; 17(1):75. PMC: 9617234. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0. View

van Gemert-Pijnen J . Implementation of health technology: Directions for research and practice. Front Digit Health. 2022; 4:1030194. PMC: 9685419. DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.1030194. View

Norton W, Chambers D . Unpacking the complexities of de-implementing inappropriate health interventions. Implement Sci. 2020; 15(1):2. PMC: 6950868. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0960-9. View

Llorian E, Waliji L, Dragojlovic N, Michaux K, Nagase F, Lynd L . Frameworks for Health Technology Assessment at an Early Stage of Product Development: A Review and Roadmap to Guide Applications. Value Health. 2023; 26(8):1258-1269. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.03.009. View

Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, ACourt C . Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(11):e367. PMC: 5688245. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.8775. View

10.

Juckett L, Bunger A, McNett M, Robinson M, Tucker S . Leveraging academic initiatives to advance implementation practice: a scoping review of capacity building interventions. Implement Sci. 2022; 17(1):49. PMC: 9308361. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01216-5. View

11.

Marcus H, Bennett A, Chari A, Day T, Hirst A, Hughes-Hallett A . IDEAL-D Framework for Device Innovation: A Consensus Statement on the Preclinical Stage. Ann Surg. 2021; 275(1):73-79. PMC: 8683254. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004907. View

12.

Roberts N, Young A, Duff J . Using Implementation Science in Nursing Research. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2023; 39(2):151399. DOI: 10.1016/j.soncn.2023.151399. View

13.

van Gemert-Pijnen J, Nijland N, van Limburg M, Ossebaard H, Kelders S, Eysenbach G . A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13(4):e111. PMC: 3278097. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1672. View

14.

Moullin J, Dickson K, Stadnick N, Albers B, Nilsen P, Broder-Fingert S . Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice. Implement Sci Commun. 2020; 1:42. PMC: 7427911. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-020-00023-7. View

15.

Powell B, McMillen J, Proctor E, Carpenter C, Griffey R, Bunger A . A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Med Care Res Rev. 2011; 69(2):123-57. PMC: 3524416. DOI: 10.1177/1077558711430690. View

16.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A . Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010; 38(2):65-76. PMC: 3068522. DOI: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7. View

17.

Glasgow R, Harden S, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith M, Porter G . RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review. Front Public Health. 2019; 7:64. PMC: 6450067. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064. View

18.

Greenhalgh T, Maylor H, Shaw S, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Betton V . The NASSS-CAT Tools for Understanding, Guiding, Monitoring, and Researching Technology Implementation Projects in Health and Social Care: Protocol for an Evaluation Study in Real-World Settings. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020; 9(5):e16861. PMC: 7254278. DOI: 10.2196/16861. View

19.

Levin L, Sheldon M, McDonough R, Aronson N, Rovers M, Gibson C . Early technology review: towards an expedited pathway. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2024; 40(1):e13. PMC: 11570026. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462324000047. View