Cited by 14Ethics and bioethics in healthcareHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeInnovation and Socioeconomic Development

How Should Organizations Promote Equitable Distribution of Benefits from Technological Innovation in Health Care?

Open access
Satish Nambisan, Priya Nambisan·2017·AMA Journal of Ethics

Abstract

Technological innovations typically benefit those who have good access to and an understanding of the underlying technologies. As such, technology-centered health care innovations are likely to preferentially benefit users of privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. Which policies and strategies should health care organizations adopt to promote equitable distribution of the benefits from technological innovations? In this essay, we draw on two important concepts-co-creation (the joint creation of value by multiple parties such as a company and its customers) and digitalization (the application of new digital technologies and the ensuing changes in sociotechnical structures and relationships)-and propose a set of policies and strategies that health care organizations could adopt to ensure that benefits from technological innovations are more equitably distributed among all target populations, including resource-poor communities and individuals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.stas1-1711

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Tilson D, Lyytinen K, Sørensen C. Digital infrastructures: the missing IS research agenda. Inf Syst Res. 2010;21(4):749.
  2. Hammedi W, Leclerq T, Van Riel AC. The use of gamification mechanics to increase employee and user engagement in participative healthcare services: a study of two cases. J Serv Manage. In press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nambisan, S., & Nambisan, P.
Affiliations
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
Venue
AMA Journal of Ethics
Published
2017-11-01
Volume
19
Issue
11
Pages
1106-1115
ISSN
  • 1937-7010 (ISSN-L)
  • 2376-6980
OpenAlex
W2766021669
Cited by
14
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The AMA Journal of Ethic (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Business and International Management › Innovation and Socioeconomic Development
Keywords
equitable benefit sharing, health equity, co-creation, digitalization, health care organization, resource-poor communities, socioeconomic disparities, health policy, socio-technical change
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Health Resources, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Organizations, Residence Characteristics, Social Class, Social Justice, Technology Transfer, Biomedical Technology, Policy, Inventions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review