Fostering Responsible Innovation in Health: An EvidenceInformed Assessment Tool for Innovation Stakeholders

Abstract

<jats:p> <jats:bold>Background:</jats:bold> Responsible innovation in health (RIH) emphasizes the importance of developing technologies that are responsive to system-level challenges and support equitable and sustainable healthcare. To help decision-makers identify whether an innovation fulfills RIH requirements, we developed and validated an evidence-informed assessment tool comprised of 4 inclusion and exclusion criteria, 9 assessment attributes and a scoring system. <jats:bold>Methods:</jats:bold> We conducted an inter-rater reliability assessment to establish the extent to which 2 raters agree when applying the RIH Tool to a diversified sample of health innovations (n=25). Following the Tool’s 3-step process, sources of information were collected and cross-checked to ensure their clarity and relevance. Ratings were reported independently in a spreadsheet to generate the study’s database. To measure inter-rater reliability, we used: a non-adjusted index (percent agreement), a chance-adjusted index (Gwet’s AC) and the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results of the Tool’s application to the whole sample of innovations are summarized through descriptive statistics. <jats:bold>Results:</jats:bold> Our findings show complete agreement for the screening criteria, "almost perfect" agreement for 7 assessment attributes, "substantial" agreement for 2 attributes and "almost perfect" agreement for the RIH overall score. A large portion of the sample obtained high scores for 6 attributes (health relevance, health inequalities, responsiveness, level and intensity of care and frugality) and low scores for 3 attributes (ethical, legal, and social issues [ELSIs], inclusiveness and eco-responsibility). At the rating step, 88% of the innovations had a sufficient number of attributes documented (≥ 7/9), but the assessment was based on sources of moderate to high quality (mean score ≥ 2 points) for 36% of the sample. While "Almost all RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (RIH mean score between 4.1-5.0 points), "Many RIH features" were present for 52% of the sample (3.1-4.0 points) and "Few RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (2.1-3.0 points). <jats:bold>Conclusion:</jats:bold> By confirming key aspects of the RIH Tool’s reliability and applicability, our study brings its development to completion. It can be jointly put into action by innovation stakeholders who want to foster innovations with greater social, economic and environmental value.</jats:p>

Collective health research assessment: Development of a tool to measure the impact of multi-stakeholder research initiatives

“…Although there have been some studies proposing evaluation frameworks or quality criteria and indicators for fostering RRI policies (see e.g. [16,23,24]), the practical tools for operationalizing the frameworks and measuring the impact of research in a holistic way remain largely unexplored.…”

“…A considerable number of studies have focused on developing frameworks for implementing RRI (see e.g. [16,23,24]), but there is a lack of tools allowing the assessment of whether and how research and innovations are actually following the RRI approach, aligned with the needs of society or considering the patient as the core element of the impact measurement. Hence, to address these needs and challenges, the CRIF and a speci c impact measurement system were developed to assess the impacts of multi-stakeholder initiatives by emphasizing multi-dimensionality and patient engagement.…”

Guiding Pay-As-You-Live Health Insurance Models Toward Responsible Innovation in Health

“…Furthermore, it emphasizes a collective approach that can shed light on various private, public, and mixed health insurance models while keeping the effectiveness and safety of health innovation at the center of stakeholders’ reflections and actions. This framework aims to support equitable and sustainable health care by fostering the development of innovations along 5 value domains that include 9 attributes [ 25 , 26 ]. Table 1 illustrates how the RIH value domains and attributes can be applied to set responsibility objectives for digitalized health insurance models.…”

Collective health research assessment: developing a tool to measure the impact of multistakeholder research initiatives

“…A considerable number of studies have focused on developing frameworks for implementing RRI (see e.g. [ 17 , 23 , 24 ]), but tools are lacking for assessing whether and how research and innovations actually follow RRI principles in line with the needs of society [ 25 ], or placing the patient perspective at the core of the impact assessment [ 26 ].…”