The field of digital health, and its meaning, has evolved rapidly over the last 20 years. For this article we followed the most recent definition provided by FDA in 2020. Emerging solutions offers tremendous potential to positively transform the healthcare sector. Despite the growing number of applications, however, the evolution of methodologies to perform timely, cost-effective and robust evaluations have not kept pace. It remains an industry-wide challenge to provide credible evidence, therefore, hindering wider adoption. Conventional methodologies, such as clinical trials, have seldom been applied and more pragmatic approaches are needed. In response, several academic centers such as researchers from the Institute of Global Health Innovation at Imperial College London have initiated a digital health clinical simulation test bed to explore new approaches for evidence gathering relevant to solution type and maturity. The aim of this article is to: (1) Review current research approaches and discuss their limitations; (2) Discuss challenges faced by different stakeholders in undertaking evaluations; and (3) Call for new approaches to facilitate the safe and responsible growth of the digital health sector.

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder responsible for considerable patient suffering and cost to health services. Despite extensive research, controversies still exist with regards to best practice in diagnosis, treatment, and service provision. Current best practise would support the use of history, examination and electro-diagnostic studies. The role for ultrasound scanning in diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome is yet to be proven. It appears magnetic resonance image scanning has a role where a rare cause for carpal tunnel syndrome may be suspected and also in the detailed reconstruction of the anatomy to aid endoscopic procedures. Treatment options can be surgical or non-surgical and patient choice will dictate the decision. For non-surgical interventions many options have been trialled but until now only steroid use, acupuncture, and splinting have shown discernable benefits. Open surgical decompression of the carpal tunnel appears to be more simple and cost-effective than minimally invasive interventions. For those patients who reject surgery, splinting, acupuncture, and steroid injection can play a role. Recent work looking at different service delivery options has shown some positive results in terms of decreasing patient waiting time for definitive treatment. However, no formal cost-effectiveness analysis has been published and concerns exist about the impact of a stream-lined service on surgical training. In this review, we look at the different diagnostic and treatment options for managing carpal tunnel syndrome. We then consider the different service delivery options and finally the cost-effectiveness evidence.

BackgroundInternational health partnerships (IHPs) are changing, with an increased emphasis on mutual accountability and joint agenda setting for both the high- and the low- or middle-income country (LMIC) partners. There is now an important focus on the bi-directionality of learning however for the UK partners, this typically focuses on learning at the individual level, through personal and professional development. We sought to evaluate whether this learning also takes the shape of ‘Reverse Innovation’ –when an idea conceived in a low-income country is subsequently adopted in a higher-income country.MethodsThis mixed methods study used an initial scoping survey of all the UK-leads of the Tropical Health Education Trust (THET)-supported International Health Partnerships (n = 114) to ascertain the extent to which the IHPs are or have been vehicles for Reverse Innovation. The survey formed the sampling frame for further deep-dive interviews to focus on volunteers’ experiences and attitudes to learning from LMICs. Interviews of IHP leads (n = 12) were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Survey data was analysed descriptively. Interview transcripts were coded thematically, using an inductive approach.ResultsSurvey response rate was 27% (n = 34). The majority (70%) strongly agreed that supporting LMIC partners best described the mission of the partnership but only 13% of respondents strongly agreed that learning about new innovations and models was a primary mission of their partnership. Although more than half of respondents reported having observed innovative practice in the LMIC, only one IHP respondent indicated that this has led to Reverse Innovation. Interviews with a sample of survey respondents revealed themes primarily around how learning is conceptualised, but also a central power imbalance between the UK and LMIC partners. Paternalistic notions of knowledge could be traced to partnership power dynamics and latent attitudes to LMICs.ConclusionsGiven the global flow of innovation, if High-income countries (HICs) are to benefit from LMIC practices, it is paramount to keep an open mind about where such learning can come from. Making the potential for learning more explicit and facilitating innovation dissemination upon return will ultimately underpin the success of adoption.

Healthcare has entered the information age. This will deliver huge opportunities for healthcare providers to deliver more individualized treatments for patients, and as such improve outcomes. Nowhere is the prospect greater than in cancer care. Healthcare providers now need to manage the challenge of how to best capture, interpret and exploit insights from real-world clinical data. A significant aspect of cancer care is the challenge of preparing and conducting tumor boards. Currently, data are distributed across multiple systems and cannot be easily aggregated or integrated. In recognition that no suitable solution existed, the University of Missouri School of Medicine, in partnership with Roche, have co-developed and co-implemented a digital tumor board solution. This article describes the development process and the enablers and barriers for adoption from a clinician’s perspective. In addition, it reflects on some of the key factors for success and some of the future opportunities.

The healthcare sector stands to benefit most from frugal innovation, the idea that more can be done for less for many more people, globally. As a first step for health systems to leverage new approaches to offset escalating health expenditures and to improve health outcomes, the most relevant frugal innovations have to be found. The Institute of Global Health Innovation was commissioned by the US-based Commonwealth Fund to identify frugal innovations from around the world that could, if transferred to the USA, offer approaches for expanding access to care and dramatically lower costs. Our global scan was motivated by the need to extend the list of frugal innovations in healthcare beyond the impressive but oft-repeated examples such as GE’s MAC 400, a US$800 portable ECG machine, Narayana’s US$1500 cardiac surgery and Aravind’s US$30 cataract surgery. Our search involved (1) scanning innovation databases, (2) refining frameworks to identify frugal innovations and evaluate their reverse potential and (3) developing in-depth case studies. From 520 possible innovations, we shortlisted 16 frugal innovations that we considered as frugal and with potential for reverse diffusion into high-income country health systems. Our global search was narrowed down to three care delivery models for case analysis: The Brazilian Family Health Strategy around community health workers; Singapore-based GeriCare@North use of telemedicine and Brazil’s Saude Crianca community involvement and citizenship programme. We share core features of the three frugal innovations and outline lessons for practitioners, scholars and policymakers seeking to lower healthcare costs while increasing access and quality.